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.
Keep This article just needed to be tagged as I have taken the liberty to do. It does need a little
wikification which I will also try and take care of. Doesn't need to be deleted though. It's also wrong to cite
WP:AUTO as a reason to delete. Doesn't apply here.
Carter |
Talk to me10:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep I have edited this article slightly in order to better meet Wikipedia's guidelines and have also created references to back up information that has been included. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.176.181.2 (
talk)
10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
They're still not secondary sources, and it's no less AUTO, if the links are all to breastcancercampaign.org.
Potatoswatter (
talk)
Comment Although most AfDs follow arguments of notability, this does not. The problem with this article is systemic bias, even if you can't "see" it. At best it duplicates material from the Campaign's website. Interested readers should go to that website if they want that information. It is not a positive contribution here. This article looks fine, but
WP:AB#The problem with autobiographies is that there is no problem. Along with the verifiable broad stokes will be the embellishments of an insider. This organization does deserve an article, but the article should be written by Wikipedians with proper standards.
Potatoswatter (
talk)
17:55, 24 May 2008 (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.