Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womensforum


 * 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. John254 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Womensforum

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

Weak assertion of notability therefore probably can't be speedied, but no reliable sources backing up the claim. Reads like an advertisement. McWomble (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD's nomination was blanked from the page by the page creator, and was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD. I've removed the G11 template, replaced the AfD banner and warned the page creator. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article's promotional crap but the website appears to be notable.    Somno (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Amending comment to reflect change in article) Somno (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - unless the article is fundamentally rewritten, it should be deleted. (EhJJ)TALK 03:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You might want to rephrase that argument... otherwise it sounds like you're making the mistake outlined in WP:NOTCLEANUP; would you care to elaborate? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a very good point. As the article stands, it falls under WP:CSD (blatant advertising requiring rewriting). The article isn't simply poorly written or lacking references, but needs to be rewritten from scratch. Since it's going through AfD, if it is rewritten before the AfD closes, then I'm all for keeping it (the topic appears notable, per ), but it really could have been speedily deleted. (EhJJ)TALK 04:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the intro paragraph is copyvio from http://www.womensforum.com/about_wf.aspx and the stats are from http://www.womensforum.com/ad_info.aspx . (EhJJ)TALK 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a start at rewriting the article using some of the sources I provided above. Somno (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Between the WSJ article and the Reuters/Businesswire, it meets WP:ORG. Good work, Somno. RayAYang (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep adequate sourcing to show notability. Usually there's some difficulty with articles like this having unconventional sourcing only, but for this one it is not a problem. DGG (talk) 19:44, 1 December 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.