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 gee whiz, there's no gosh-darn consensus. Oh, drat! krimpet✽ 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Cussing Club[edit]

No Cussing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page seems to me like a self promotional page of a specific group.

1. The quote "It currently has chapters in 50 states and 24 countries worldwide" uses a reference from their website which is bias via self promotion. No other evidence supports this statement. Also not 50 states and 24 country yet all news comes from LA, California newspapers rather than international.
2. Second reference point does not provide much information about what the group is about and how it was formed
3. Site was hacked before and was not quoted or said in the article. Since its such a small group there is little data [1][2][3]

Not Notable: Website not notableWP:Notability & WP:Notability

1. Insufficient secondary
2. There are few notable members
3. Wikipedia Notability quotes: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." there are not enough
4. All content is NOT attributed by sources.
5. "Hatch has been featured on radio and television locally and nationwide, including KCAL, KNBC, Power 106, On Air with Ryan Seacrest on 102.7 KIIS FM, KABC Radio with Peter Tilden, and the Fox News Channel." has no attributions or references
6. No information about founder "Hatch"
7. No history of events meetings Cs california (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is either delete or merge into some anti profanity group page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs) 07:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge. This has clearly been covered nontrivially by reliable sources. Yeah it's a poor article, so tag it with ((cleanup)) or ((advert)) or whatever, but it's notable by our standards. <eleland/talkedits> 11:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable and blatently self promotional.--Ratman9999 (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. This one shouldn't even have needed debate. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I know nothing about the club myself. However, per WP:ORG, the major requirement for notability of organizations is in coverage of reliable secondary sources, and this article has it. The club has appeared on various news sites, radio stations, and on television. The size of the organization is adequate, the notability of key members is adequate, and the sourcing is more than adequate. I would also like to advance that the positive, "advertiser" tone of the article will be edited to death on Wikipedia, an inherently pro-free speech organization. Estemi (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues mentioned on WP:ORG was addressed. You state radio and television but provide no references. Wikipedia is NOT a promotional site as addressed in WP:ORG. Two sources is NOT considered adequate. --Cs california (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a search on the site apparently it IS SELF PROMOTIONAL all the links on references on the wikipedia are also on the site. No third party reliable sources are out there and not much NPOV article or articles bashing the group either.--Cs california (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.89.177 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge to somewhere appropriate. Barely passes WP:N, might be better in another article, but can't think which one.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete* Fail on so many points, it's not even funny. Even poorly written articles can manage to scrape up at least two third party sources. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:18, 1 March 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.