Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Hampshire Women's Caucus


 * 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. Courcelles 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The New Hampshire Women's Caucus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

After removal of copyright violations, nothing much is left of this article. Notability has not been established for this organization in accordance with the general notability guidelines, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All sourcing provided either lacks independence or merely supports existence of individual members of the organization's advisory board. Cind.  amuse  (Cindy) 14:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I'm building this entry -- it's a new organization so how does one establish "notability" for wikipedia standards? I've looked at the guidelines but would appreciate anybody's help! thanks! Litendum (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Coment Following my involvement on the user's talk page, I cast no !vote here. But to answer the above question, you need to quote secondary sources - newspapers, periodicals, articles in magazines, etc. If none exist then the article does indeed not possess wikipedic notability. Sorry. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, thanks so much for the help. I'll add that stuff. Litendum (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. The biggest problem I see is that this group hasn't done anything at all yet, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete reads like spam. The article is about an organisation that has up to now only been spoken about and has not even helds its first meeting. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for organisations to showcase themselves. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a crystal ball exercise, possibly with promotional intent. After the first caucus takes place this fall, gather together published sources about the event and the group and write an article. Until then, this should be userfied. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Too soon. Both Yahoo! and Google didn't get any media coverage aside from this announcement here. I don't think that's enough for an encyclopedia's article though. SwisterTwister   talk  06:22, 5 August 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.