Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United North America


 * 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. W.marsh 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

United North America

 * — (View AfD)

Article cites only the website of its subject. A Google search shows no reliable, non-trivial coverage. De-prodded by anon with comment "This organization's leader has had multiple interviews on Radio stations across north america. Give us more time to update the links as he is on vacation right now." Pan Dan 14:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I search CNN.com for coverage and then did a google search, looking for possible valid external sources to cite the article with. I could not find anything good so I gotta go with delete.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to fail notability, no original research, verifiability from reliable sources, neutral point of view. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable, non-notable. Ter e nce Ong 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above; also per WP:SOAPBOX. Agent 86 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait for return from Vacation Let's give a REASONABLE (say December 20th as an example) time limit on waiting for this "leader" to return from vacation. If no changes have been made by the "leader" by a certain date, then the AfD could continue, or the article can be deleted, as agreed here.--Azathar 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Anything the "leader" said would still have to be verified by external reliable sources, which won't happen. -- Kicking222 23:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see into the future, so I don't know if he can or can't provide external reliable sources, and honestly, neither can you. So, what does it hurt by having the vote, and holding off for a set amount of days to see if the "leader" can provide us with external reliable sources before we delete it? It doesn't hurt anything.--Azathar 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TSO1D 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Any notable organization should have a press office MNewnham 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess 5 million+ visitors doesn't qualify as notable in your rigid interpretation of meaningful. But hey, you guys have allready made up your minds, so Cheers. Americalex 6:42PM 05/12/2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.165.149 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-05 23:44:09
 * No, they haven't. This is a discussion, not a vote.  Opinions are not set in stone.  You could change their minds by citing sources to demonstrate that the web site satisfies at least one of the WP:WEB criteria.  Uncle G 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done my own searches and come to the same conclusion. The only places where I can find this organization and its founder even mentioned are a handful (literally) of pseudonymous postings to discussion fora, web logs, and the like.  The only citations present in the article are for the web site itself.  The WP:WEB criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This organization does not meet the WP:ORG criteria nor does its web site meet the WP:WEB criteria. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NeoJustin 23:08, 7 December 2006 (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.