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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intaction[edit]

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

Article based on Press Releases, are there 2x WP:RS to meet WP:GNG? WP:ADVOCACY. (edited by sockfarm editors User:Hillysilly blocked User:Josiah120214 etc, possibly linked to banned User:Morning277) Widefox; talk 00:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would suggest the article should be kept. Notable, independent reliable secondary sources include the Vice article and the New York Post article referenced in the article. Intaction by nature is an advocacy organisation, but so are other organisations that have Wikipedia articles (think World Wildlife Fund or similar). I understand that the people who initiated this article may be close to the subject such that there is a conflict of interest, but the fully cited sections of the article can be kept, and I suggest it would be better to improve what's there than delete altogether.

I understand where you're coming from, but WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't very strong. It isn't about the topic (which I personally find interesting), it is failure to WP:V and WP not being WP:ADVOCACY / hosting PR. Widefox; talk 15:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Undisclosed paid editing is against our TOU. This has only been edited by blocked socks, sockmasters, and suspects - all of which are under investigation with overwhelming evidence and no disclosures. Widefox; talk 15:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Vice and the New York Post are not reliable sources, if they ever were. This is tabloid trash. I have no opinion for publication (ahem) on the substance of the matter. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article violates TOU, subject fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk)

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.