Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student LifeNet (3rd 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 Delete per nominators strong argument. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

=[[Student LifeNet]]=

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student LifeNet}}

:{{la|Student LifeNet}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Quoting from WP:ORG: "(An organization) is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. (...) The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." One of the reasons for this requirement is that the article should be based on these secondary sources, allowing for neutral coverage.

Despite two AfDs, the article under discussion is still based on primary sources only. A number of secondary sources (press coverage) have been cited in the previous AfDs, see also the article's talk page. However, these do not seem to contain in-depth coverage.

Some of them are republished press releases, such as

[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21554.php here]. Others (such as [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4720813.stm this one]) just state, "XYZ from Student LifeNet said..." and do not tell anything about the organization. They do not have the organization as their subject; rather, they are about abortion in the UK, and mention the organization only in passing. Also, since those quotes are quite similar in some places, I suspect that the quotes are very close to republished press releases as well.

In short, substantial independent sources have not been presented, and I doubt they will ever be. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per excellent explanation by nom. Most student organizations are non-notable, not covered in independent sources. This one is no exception and I fail to see an independent source that does not conform to the model that Wolterding showed above. Epthorn (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:*Additional Comment: The previous decisions on this topic's deletion seem very strange to me, particularly the first one. I hope that arguments and not vote numbers are what decide it this time. Epthorn (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No notability. --Nlu (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2007 (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.