Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empowher


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Empowher

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, fails WP:CORP. Tagged for sources for over a month to no effect. AndrewHowse (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable web content or business; also obvious spam: provides women access to health information, medical resources and a community of members and advocates committed to their well-being. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

working on sources now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachieheather (talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 06:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: All I'm getting for sources are PRNewswire, Businesswire, and Internetwire. Most are "news in brief" type stuff (so-and-so named head of such-and-such, what's-her-name announces new this-or-that initiative, &c) amidst the day's other goings on.  The dedicated articles are clear press releases from empowher itself; they have the head of Public Relations contact info attached to them. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am sometimes a little forgiving of organizations (I think this one might squeak by WP:Notability (organizations)), but this article is unencyclopedic and promotional. The article was also previously speedily deleted and the user was warned about writing promotional articles. PDCook (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2009 (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.