Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Only Dads


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Only Dads

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a non-notable charity website written by its creator: the two references provided focus on the socio-economic problem of being a single dad; the charity website itself gets only a one-word mention and link and is not covered directly and in detail. PROD-tag was removed without explanation, possibly by mistake? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  duumvirate  ─╢ 08:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I accidentally removed the PROD tag when cleaning up/wikifying the article - I have no association with the organisation and haven't checked any sources for notability yet. X X X antiuser eh? 08:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are we being for real?. How did this go from a SD request to an AFD?. I was relieved when I saw TreasuryTag had already tag it for SD as this clearly meets CSD A7. Then it came the PROD out of nowhere by the same person who tag it. Then an AFD? Really? It almost seems as the nom is trying to protect the article. --Legion fi (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Once the article creator added a couple of sources, it no longer met A7, which requires that there is no assertion of notability. They did make an attempt. Please assume good faith in future. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Lord Speaker  ─╢ 08:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Clearly meets CSD A7. Also, original author has shown a clear conflict of interest with the subject. --Legion fi (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This does not seem to meet CSD:A7: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.". The article has references and the CSD is purposefully narrow. I'll take the blame for goofing it and removing the PROD. X X X antiuser eh? 08:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The only references I can find are the ones in the article (basically just a mention of the website - the articles are about the issue of fathers raising kids on their own) and one in This is South Devon about an 'advice clinic' they ran in 2008, and appears to be based on a press release (I didn't see anything after that). There does not appear to be the significant coverage of this organisation at reliable independent sources, and nothing to indicate that this worthy charity is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:58, 20 June 2011 (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.