Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.A.C.T.1

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.C.T.1

Organization has <350 Google hits. Alexa rank of website is non-existent, with 7 incoming links. Delete SarekOfVulcan 05:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I created this article because 1) It is a valid organisation, and 2) it portrays the effects an abortion can have on other people accurately, balancing the views of wikipedia and making things more NPOV. Also I did my best to write it in a neutral tone of voice, and everything to make this a decent article. Chooserr 05:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right on both of your points, but this does not really address the Google test or the page ranks. Perhaps there have been some newspaper or magazine articles written or other independent recognitions that would make the organization appear more article-worthy? --Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is very non-point-of-view, but not every organisation can make the cut, and your organization seems rather new and tiny. Madman 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, WP:WEB, WP:NOT Soapbox, Site under construction (lol) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 19:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and article is a combination of advertising and vanity ("website under construction"?). Madman 19:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soapbox ad for non-notable group. And "Website under construction" pretty much clinches it. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn Incognito 02:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid article. --Shanedidona 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What's all this about it being a valid orgainization and a valid article? What does that even mean? Whoever accused anything of being invalid, and what would that mean? The problem isn't "validity", it's notability and verifiability. See User:Maxamegalon2000's comments above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Madman. Note: I have deleted the external link, I don't think we need to be linking to "websites which are under construction". --kingboyk 18:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well reasoned nomination.
I checked the XML and the article is indeed valid (and well-formed), but still unencyclopaedic. Note: this may or may not be a very poor XML joke. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:44, 20 January 2006 (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.