Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Research Center for Women & Families

:{{la|National Research Center for Women & Families}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|National Research Center for Women & Families}})

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was origionaly created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to National Research Center. Was recently undeleted as a contested prod, by another newly created sock puppet of Scmd, and now the article is being "maintained" by this account.

*This is one Part of a long history of Spam, promotion and abuse on Wikipedia by National Research Center, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Sep_2#National_Research_Center_for_Women_.26_Families_citation_spamming

Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Utilizing sock puppets to circumvent blocks in order to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and Blatant advertising, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt - for blatant violations of wikipolicies as per Hu12. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Looking at Google [http://www.google.com/search?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22National%20Research%20Center%20for%20Women%22&cf=all&sa=N&tab=pw] and Google News Archives [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22National+Research+Center+for+Women%22&cf=all] and Google Books [http://books.google.com/books?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22National%20Research%20Center%20for%20Women%22&cf=all&sa=N&tab=np], I don't see a single source that gives substantial, in-detail coverage of the organization as a whole, but I do see many, many references to the group that, taken as a whole, show that it's an influential organization. Sources such as The Washington Post, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404272.html?hpid=moreheadlines] [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/718353431.html?dids=718353431:718353431&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+21%2C+2004&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=CORRECTIONS&pqatl=google] USA Today (where the organization has its own page in the newspaper's online archives [http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/National+Research+Center+for+Women]), and the Associated Press (most recent [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjyjRfFZhLWGMe3kPR_UfAuYpiswD9AK22201]) all seem to respect this organization. If there weren't so much of it, I'd favor deleting, but as WP:ORG states: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. In a practical, common-sense level, it's good for readers to be able to find an article about a group that gets quoted advocating or commenting in the media so much. JohnWBarber (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment [http://img143.imageshack.us/i/ilikedthispart.png/ A little offtopic]. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment whether being quoted in news articles makes for notability has been a general question, most commonly with BLPs for consultants--if they are quoted by major newspapers, are they notable ? If they are very widely quoted perhaps, but it would In my opinion, I discount statements in the newspaper that "x is an authority." -- they're often meaningless puffery for whoever was willing to talk to the reporter. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. While the organisation has been quoted widely, I haven't yet found sufficient articles about it in independent reliable sources to justify an article. Even in the odd article that mentions it rather than merely quoting it, the coverage is trivial, as here [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/09/27/20090927charity0927.html]. 'Weak' because it's not obviously non-notable - reliable sources could, perhaps, yet be found. Robofish (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are serious notability concerns, and the spamming behaviour puts this over the line. ThemFromSpace 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, Cleanup. The article recently had several citations added, and it seems to be presented in a comprehensive manner. Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:50, 3 October 2009 (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.