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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Family Planning Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete, it is a charity but it does not appear notable by itself. From what I understand when I read it there is one event that made it notable but that in and of itself doesn't make it a notable business.Specifically the only thing I see is the mention of reccomending people lie to their physician. Other then that it seems to be discussing the social aspect of contraception in Ireland. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC) it's also a WP:COATRACK article Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Google news provides a fair amount of 388 results, most of which are quite lengthy mentions of the organisation, meeting WP:GNG. They are not just notable for one event, they are notable by themselves, as a cursor search would show. :) Clearly you forgot about WP:BEFORE, "from what I understand". Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm well versed in it and if you actually read the article you'd see it's also a WP:COATRACK article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets notability, the reason for nomination. The quality of the article so far is another matter. RashersTierney (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability: the organization is culturally, historically and medically important in Ireland, and its existence has, and continues to, generate debate on a national scale. Please note that the article is still a stub, and will be expanded with further information in time, based on the current content. There are several articles of a similar nature on Wikipedia, such as Family Planning Association (UK), Japan Family Planning Association, The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong, Family Planning Association India, etc. Hohenloh ⁺ 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I was off base on this one. Suggest WP:Snow here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has to pass the GNG. There must be books out there on this if there's not enough online. Very famous organisation. Very surprised to see this up for deletion. Nearly knocked the keyboard onto the floor in shock. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are a couple of good citations already in article, although the Irish Times article does not mention the group by name. Yes, I see that this could become a coatrack article, but it is not there yet. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, plenty of secondary source coverage, ample satisfaction of WP:NOTE, and then some. — Cirt (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2012 (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.