Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services Foundation

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. ✗plicit 05:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hysterectomy Educational Resources and Services Foundation[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I proposed this for deletion as Seeing a bynch of passing mentions, but not the kind of in-depth, independent coverage that would be required to establish notability. This was contested with nothing more than deserves a closer look at AfD, so here we go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I restored some references that another editor removed. I think that the article now demonstrates notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that those sources don't demonstrate notability - they're about the topic of hysterectomies and mention the organization only in passing, to attribute a claim. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've reviewed the current sources (except for boston.com which is behind a paywall) and looked for additional ones. The organization is mentioned only in passing in everything I reviewed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are insubstantial, as previously mentioned. Any other secondary sources fail to establish notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no extensive independent coverage. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2023 (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.