Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens for Health (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sing! 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Citizens for Health
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously kept in a discussion almost a year ago, this is a longtime advocacy group that continues to fail the test for multiple, non-trivial sources about the subject. One Bloomberg article, currently in the article, exists that talks about Citizens for Health in some form of substance, but the article itself is more about lobbying than the group, and the Washington Examiner piece barely discusses Citizens for Health at all. A close examination clearly shows that this does not meet our inclusion standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as earlier. Has a sufficient public role that the information is of encyclopedic importance. Adequate referencing.  DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:ORG. Article has adequate sources.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources that show it meets WP:ORG? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Bloomberg, Breitbart, New York Times, Food Business Nwes... and they've been sought for quotes or their activities have been picked up by (i.e. less substantial coverage): Chicago Tribune, Huffington Post, Nonprofit Quarterly, LA Times, USA Today.. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * None of these are about the topic being discussed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a strange strategy to take here. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How so? There doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of the topic in any of those articles you posted, or in the references in the current article.  Nothing about them at all, coverage is pretty trivial. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:ORG, appears to be a notable advocacy group that is widely quoted and remarked upon by external reliable sources. Its petitions to the FDA on various issues have been covered substantially. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this substantial coverage of the topic we're discussing? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.