Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexy Backs for Autism Awareness


 * 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexy Backs for Autism Awareness

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page was created by the person who owns the site (or the wife of the site owner) it seems that it is a way of self promotion. There are many site like this article is about out there so why should this site have one while the others don't. Yourname (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This article requires inline citations, and then it could possibly be an okay article. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No references from reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources? no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage, no news hits, few Google hits.  Graymornings (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not notable. Agreed with above opinions. blurredpeace ☮ 12:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexy Backs for Autism Awareness is a project that has nothing to do with self promotion. James has Asperger's Syndrome and our son has Autism. The project is about raising awareness of Autism, but please delete the page, and James' also. When I wrote the original page for James and Sexy Backs we went through similar and can't be bothered with the fuss this time. Thanks for your time and help, and please accept our apologies for causing any inconvenience caused. We value Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, so accept the decision you make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanaprice (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Two references provided in the article seem reasonable to me; not sure why we'd need more than that. JulesH (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep as the references (and pdf extract) are from verifiable print media. However, I am not convinced of the subject's notability at this time. The wiki article on the campaign's founder (also the subject of an Afd) should go. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial site, trivial coverage. Almost a G11 speedy for purely promotional. DGG (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as it appears to be true, and verifiable, but not notable, sorry. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I had actually heard of the project somehow when it was launched, but the threshold for the Wanganui Chronicle ref is a little low (fairly easy for a local to get coverage there with a press release). If there was coverage in the NZ Herald I would have voted keep, but there is nothing in their archive. dramatic (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  01:34, 20 April 2009 (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.