Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Edge (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Rigadoun (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Women's Edge
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deletion nomination This is the second nomination. The prior nomination was closed because not enough comments were made to reach a consensus. I am starting a second nomination in hopes of having a more robust discussion. My prior concerns, quoted from the first AFD, "The group may do noble work, however in order to merit an article at Wikipedia, the article about the group needs to provide evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:ORG guidelines. This only only cites the organizations own website, which is not an independent reliable source. If independent sources can be provided, that would help, but as it stands now, this group seems to fail notability guidelines." still hold as of today. No edits have been made to this article since the last AFD was opened. Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just because something doesn't get many google hits doesn't mean it doesn't merit an article. The organization has won the Mildred Robbins Leet Award for the Advancement of Women, and was named one of 25 Best Small Companies by Working Mother magazine. This article survived a AfD session less than two months ago, with three people wishing to keep the article and only the nominator wishing to delete it. This AfD is nominated again by the same nominator as before. Why the persistence? "Women's Edge Coalition" -wikipedia retrieves 15,400 on google. So it's not the Nelson Mandela Institution, but it isn't poppycock either. This article itself is a stub, and needs work, but that is no reason for deletion. The article simply needs some work. Kingturtle (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when I said, and I quote for a third time, "If independent sources can be provided, that would help" and "The group may do noble work" that would cause you to assume that I had some sort of ulterior motive? Maybe the desire to find reliable sources and improve this article to a keepable state is something you do NOT wish to do, but as far as I am concerned, that would be the BEST thing to happen to this article.  The problem is, no one has yet cited a single reliable source.  The two people below have indicated that they may exist, which is hopeful.  If someone could maybe provide 2-3 links to reliable sources, I would withdraw this nomination instantly.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did an edit with some references. If I have time this week I can add more. Maybe you can help out my adding more. Kingturtle (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep & Rename? - my search seems to show that this organization may have changed its name to Womens Thrive Worldwide. They have a page with links to reputable independent news organizations which cover their activities.  Someone with a greater knowledge of womens international organizations may be able to shed more light on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep --- scant but sufficient independent reliable sources. --- tqbf  05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayron: here's what appears to be the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (but from a long time ago). Here's the group's own press room, including radio interviews on ABC, quotes in Reuters stories, op-eds and published letters-to-editor in a myriad of small newspapers, and a bunch of hits in tiny magazines. I agree, these are scant sources, especially for a purportedly established NPO (I have no opinion about this organization). But they're there, and they're sufficient to win an AfD debate over notability. --- tqbf  17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Withdraw Nomination Thanks for finding that information. It is clear that this organization has the independent reliable coverage to be considered notable.  I no longer feel the article merits deletion.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:56, 3 January 2008 (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.