Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of the Earth (US)


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 15:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for listing under "Australia" - Having mouse issues. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Friends of the Earth (US)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising and promo The Banner talk 23:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – contains only affiliated sources. -- Orduin  Discuss 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seriously? There are lots of sources covering this organization, e.g. from just the first page of Google Books results: Robert Lamb's Promising the Earth, Mother Jones, Thomas Wellock's Critical Masses, Clare Saunders Environmental Networks and Social Movement Theory, Social History of the United States, Historical Dictionary of the Green Movement. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing their notability. I believe that. But this article is one big advertisement beyond rescue. WP:TNT is the best option here. The Banner talk 10:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and indef ban for the malicious nomination by . –Be..anyone (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, my concerns are genuine mr. Be..anyone. And I take your stance towards me and towards the encyclopaedia as an affront. Plain advertising is not in the best interest of an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 10:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we have an article about this organization? Yes. Should we have this as our article about this organization? Not sure, I'd have to take some time to comb through the sources and page history. Maybe there is something salvageable, but maybe it needs to be deleted and rewritten from scratch, using external sources. Oh, and Be...anyone, relax. I assess that The Banner means well here and is not being malicious. DS (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't even need to look, I know this organization is a slam-dunk GNG keep even without looking at Michig's list of sources — which easily suffice for a GNG pass. The piece is wholly self-sourced and that needs to be fixed — but that's an editing matter, not a notability matter. AfD is not for clean up. Have at it. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with you cleaning it up. But I think WP:TNT is appropriate here. The Banner talk 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is self-referenced fluff, and it's always been that way in spite of multiple issues clearly tagged for many years. The recent tidying up doesn't obscure that there are no neutral secondary sources in the article. If there are good sources, then I think it would be better to build a new article from scratch with only what can be supported by those sources rather than trying to add after the fact props to a big long advert. AndroidCat (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Regrettable Keep. The article is shit, and this is one organization I would just as soon disappeared, but it certainly has its fair share of press.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 07:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Concerns about promotional tone, sourcing, etc. can be addressed by copy editing the article. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit per . --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. The resources are really bad (90%) but the organization is notable.--Mingo 08:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad1989 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.