Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reclaim Love


 * 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. Secret account 20:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Reclaim Love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this is too promotional to rewrite. But if anyone is willing to, I'll withdraw the AfD  DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. For something that has supposedly been going on since 2003, there is very little out there about it. Even if this was re-written from scratch, there's nothing out there that mentions this event/movement that's actually reliable. It should be noted that the article does include some sources that look like they'd be reliable... until you realize that the book and Guardian isn't really talking about the event but the concept of love itself. This is yet another AfC creation that really baffles me as to why it ever made it to the mainspace in the first place. I'm trying not to sound harsh, but there's absolutely nothing in that article that looked to be ready for the mainspace. I've cleaned out the worst of the article and reduced it to a stub, but that only backs up the claims of non-notability. I'm actually debating reverting my edits so it can be speedied as sheer unadulterated promotion and get it out of the way. There's no notability here. I noted that the person who created the article in the first place also has a userpage about the founder. Now this doesn't mean that the person that created the article is the founder, but this article was clearly written as a soapbox and promotional page for the event and apart from some early edits, their sole purpose here seems to be to promote the gathering and its founder. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The person (Venus CuMara) also has a page in the mainspace. I've tagged both as speedy for lack of notability and promotion, but if they aren't deleted that way then I'll nominate those for AfD. The big thing here is that these try to establish notability but are so overly puffed up with promotional peacocking that it makes their accomplishments out to be more than it actually is. Searches for the event and it's founder bring up nothing in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article is written like an advertisement, only four sources and none from really notable news networks. APerson241 (talk!) 19:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: No notability. SL93 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete'. Fails WP:GNG and shouldn't be kept. Ducknish (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2013 (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.