Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intact America


 * 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. WaggersTALK  01:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Intact America

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Promotional page for the organization. Coverage of the group in reliable sources outside of passing mentions is almost non-existent. Present citations for the article are entirely self-cited from Intact America itself, rather than secondary+ sources.

Doesn't appear to be independently notable. KlayCax (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 09:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mentioned in many RS, easily passes WP:GNG. Nom's claim that Present citations for the article are entirely self-cited from Intact America itself, rather than secondary+ sources is evidently incorrect: secondary sources cited in the article are Reuters, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, NBC News, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post (twice), American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics (journal) (twice), Associated Press. Last I checked, all of these are RS. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "Mentioning" isn't the criteria of notability. WP: GNG requires for sourcing.


 * That is, it . Note that WP: GNG also states that references like and is thus . All of these sources — with the exception of Reuters, The Washington Post, and The Huffington Post — are exactly this. Of the remaining, all of them fail the criteria of being independent of the subject. WP: GNG goes on to state that reliability.


 * Everything posted is either a self-published source or brief mention. None of that meets the criteria of WP: GNG. Note: I'm the person who proposed the AfD. So I'm not casting a vote for or against the proposal in this. Personally, I think that merging the article into circumcision controversies would be the best option. KlayCax (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Circumcision controversies Delete per rationale given by KlayCax in the above comments. I agree that the subject does not presently meet the notability criteria required for a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I've revised my !vote. After further consideration, a redirect might be considered, but I'm not convinced there's enough RS-based content here to be merged.Sal2100 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The organization has not been profiled in any sources, only mentioned. Lamona (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete:Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIRS. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.