Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Advocates for Health Freedom


 * 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. -- Kurykh  02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

International Advocates for Health Freedom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable organization; promotional Tom Harrison Talk 12:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, self-promotion. Realkyhick 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete While "International Advocates for Health Freedom" does get 17,600 unique google hits, the article as written makes little if any assertion of notability, has no reliable, verifiable sources, on top of the article having a pretty POV slant, reading almost like a propaganda piece for the organization. It may be possible to find proper sources, rewrite it to a more NPOV form and establish proper notability (and if that happens I'll change my vote to Keep), but unless that is done this article is ripe for deletion.  --Wingsandsword 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No verification of notability in independent sources. VanTucky  (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The IAHF has been around for over a decade and has played a notable role in grass-root internet activism. Unfortunately that is seldom covered in the media. The article is promotional as it stands now but could be rewritten with better sources. I don't know all detials of wiki-policy but I am concerned that a delete decision today will make it impossible to start a new and more balanced article in the future. If it is possible to start the article again in the future I don't have any real objection to a delete now. MaxPont 12:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per MaxPont. It asserts notability, and is clearly notable, and can be verified, per Wingsandsword, but needs some sourcing. Bearian 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete there are exactly zero items in Google News, and i have also not found any in Google that meet WP:RS and talk about it in a substantial way. The many items in google are the typical issue-oriented pr sites the organization runs to increase its own publicity, or those of associated organizations. No third party notability. DGG (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2007 (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.