Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UniteWomen.org


 * 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   no consensus. j⚛e deckertalk 15:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

UniteWomen.org

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be a noteworthy organization. Multiple reliable sources about the organization do not appear to exist. PROD removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is a stub and can be expanded. There are reliable sources on the topic. I'm sure this AFD will help expand the article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage, including some easily seen at: . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please highlight some of this secondary source coverage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to War on Women. The independent sources in the article all cover the political issues and marches, not this organisation or website. The remaining sources (including the "Addicting Info" source) aren't independent. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete as non notable organization. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  22:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. More than enough sourcing here to pass WP:GNG. gobonobo  + c 02:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , can you please detail the sources about the subject that pass the GNG? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – I don't know about anyone else, but even with proper sourcing, the article still wouldn't be notable. This is basically an article about how the organization fights the war on women, not about the organization itself. Epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2014 (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.