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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WiN Global

[edit]

Women in nuclear was deleted twice as spam. Is this any better? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as spam Nk.sheridan Talk 18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The version has got to go; it reads like a vision statement. There may be mentions in reliable sources (namely news articles), but these seem to amount only to announcements of awards granted by WiN, workshops they've held, and information about the growth of a particular chapter. There may be one or two scholarly papers out there to attest to their significance (Requires IEEE membership), but I cannot access them. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The full text of the mention in this article reads "In 1993, a group of professional women started Women In Nuclear (WIN), to advocate the nuclear industry. The basic objectives of WIN are to promote women in the field of nuclear technology, to provide a network to help further their professional development, and the most important objective is to provide an association through which the public is informed about nuclear energy and nuclear technologies. The associations like WIN are trying to promote the nuclear industry with Congress and public. This organization should be deep rooted into every university with a nuclear program and at every nuclear facility." I leave everyone to draw their own conclusions Kate (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:ORG. Speedy as per Wikipedia:ORG#Special_note:_advertising_and_promotion--Cailil ^talk 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising...and copyvio [1] (I'd marked for speedy for copyvio previously and someone tried to clean it up and it's STILL got issues) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:44, 27 June 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.