Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not for Sale (organization)

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. Consensus is that it passes notability criteria for an organization, although it might have a promotional issue which should be corrected. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not for Sale (organization)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing to establish notability per WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 13:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a relatively high profile organization. I.e. [1] 169.231.4.229 (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also [2]. Admittedly a little harder than usual to google for because "not for sale" is a common phrase (even a common slogan among similar organizations/campaigns dealing with human trafficking). 169.231.4.229 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:BEFORE search, a requirement of AFD, would have saved us all a lot of time here. This is among a dozen other AFDs that have been loosely nominated for deletion based upon the article's need for cleanup rather than its actual notability merits both on Wikipedia and off. 'Not For Sale' appears in numerous books such as this, newspaper articles like this and other publications. I won't list them all as they're far too numerous. I appreciate that Kelly is trying to clean up all of Neelix's articles (dozens upon dozens of AFDs) but AFD is not clean up and a bit more time should have been taken in selecting which articles go to AFD. Mkdw ^talk 19:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not one of Neelix's articles in any case. It just happens to be in the field of human trafficking and he edited it once, but he's not the main author.169.231.54.192 (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Batstone (if that's kept) or simply delete as News, Books and Highbeam found some links but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 08:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is it not notable, but the intent is clearly promotional. An attempt to include every organization supporting a good cause is not appropriate for an encycopedia --we're not a directory of charities and more than of anything else. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ORG. Huffington Post, U.S. News & World Report, LA Times, Forbes, Oakland Local, Mashable, Huffington Post again, Wall Street Journal on their coworking space, The Guardian... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of sources posted above by Rhododendrites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.