Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPARC & Breastfeeding


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 06:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

SPARC & Breastfeeding

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pure advocacy. The subject is probably notable, but the article would need to be rewritten from scratch with a NPOV. It might be better to move some of the sources and material to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SPARC Child Rights Society in Pakistan, which badly needs it. Please note the discussion at ANI with respect to conflict of interest.  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a personal soapbox essay, not an article. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GREATWRONGS. I mean, per WP:NOR. Killer Chihuahua 10:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per proposer, however we ought to convey to the creator what is wrong in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * SPARC is notable, and thus could have an article, in which various SPARC efforts can be detailed. The subject of this article is not notable and thus the vote.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is one of those instances where it is better to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just start over. Advocacy essay. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am going to be assisting the user in creating a new article on SPARC. I'll just be salvaging the usable stuff from this article and the others. Please don't snowball close and delete for at least 24 hours. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the necessity, you could save the code in a text file, or put it in a sandbox, am I wrong? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess, but it looks terrible then. Anyways, all the 'delete' votes thus far are totally wrong I think. If I weren't already in the process of rewriting it (instead of moving and rewriting it which would screw up this AFD) all the comments seem to be delete not because of valid sources or notability, but because of non-encyclopedic writing. This is particularly concerning for me as a quick Google search yields plenty of information on the topic. Specifically, that no fault according to WP:DEL-REASON is present. Rather then fix something, you rather delete it? Since I'm not going to disrupt the process, I've just begun some work on another page Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, taking from one AFC and current subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Trout all the delete !votes based on writing style or that it isn't written like an article. Valid sources cited, passes GNG, the rest is fixable.  -- No  unique  names  03:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Create Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, Merge content there Delete this title (unlikely search term anyway). I see ChrisGualtieri has already created the necessary merge target (great work!). The "subject" is notable, an article is justified but the title is rubbish, that's all. Looks like a perfectly good faith effort to create an article about the SPARC which seems like an entirely worthwhile endeavour. Stalwart 111  23:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, or userfy so the editor who created the article can add some of the content to other suitable articles, including the newly created Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stalwart's comment. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 21:50, 24 December 2012 (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.