Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeanIn.Org


 * 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 no consensus. Nakon 00:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

LeanIn.Org

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The founders are notable, and probably the book; there;'s no reason to think this is notable; Further, it's written as a press release "Resources providing information on how to create and maintain a circle can be found at http://leanincircles.org"   Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I myself tagged this for speedy....but it was removed with no other attempts to at least consider deleting or otherwise questioning at all, there's also then nothing else to suggest any actual solid independent notability, with nothing else to suggest any minimal convincing, delete by all means. SwisterTwister   talk  05:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For starters, check out these sources:, , , . North America1000 00:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge and redirect to the article for the book. The organization is notable as a sub-subject of the book and Sheryl Sandberg but clearly isn't on its own according to the sources provided. Steven Walling &bull; talk   02:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are tons of articles available for leanin.org via Google News to meet notability requirements. If you need more, you can also look up Lean In Foundation. I incorporated a few third party references like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, ESPN to get started. Given what the foundation does + the breadth of references available, this deletion discussion seems absolutely ridiculous. Article needs improved references and expansion, not deletion, merging or redirecting per WP:DELETE and WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Organization is well-known and the article just needs more work. If it's truly a crisis of bandwidth to the wikimedia foundation servers, then propose a merge tag and discuss that way; definitely not an AfD candidate.  Montanabw (talk)  07:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NEXIST, and also:, , , , etc. North America1000 00:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: pure promo. Honestly, it feels promotional enough to qualify for a WP:G11 deletion. Kolbasz (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because an article is positive in tone, doesn't make it promotional. However, to be balanced, I've been adding references and critical pieces about the organization, like this piece. There is enough news coverage for the article to pass GNG easily. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources about the topic. Also keep per improvements to the article after it was nominated for deletion (WP:HEY!). North America1000 00:16, 27 June 2016 (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.