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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F.E.A.S.T.[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Only independent sources I could find make bare passing mentions of the group, with nothing approaching significant coverage. TN X Man 02:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, numerous solid hits from various online sources and print articles such as recent pieces in Time Magazine, NYT and the Washington Post not to mention airtime on National Public Radio, contributes much more as an article to the readers of Wikipedia than not--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the point I was trying to make in my nomination statement. The mentions of FEAST in those articles are passing mentions at best. For example, the NYT article only mentions the group in the very last paragraph. TN X Man 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in passing? Specific mentions in Time Magazine AND the NYT AND the Washington Post AND a National Public Radio broadcast. Do you think these press agencies would mention an organization if it was not relevant to their respective audiences whom they, the print organizations, ferociously compete for?--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability for relatively new organization. A redirection to the article on eating disorders and a metnion there as one of the organizations working on that issue might be okay. Also, how does "Families Empowered and Supporting Treatment of Eating Disorders" spell Feast? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verifiability is NOT the same thing as notability. There are any number of people and organizations that receive passing reference in media, even major media. However, that is not enough, in itself, to establish notability. The argument has not even been made for the notability of this organization. We don't even know how many people belong to it, or what influence, if any, it has had. Qworty (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no evidence of significant coverage. [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2009 (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.