Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Teens

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Teens

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

This article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines for corporations. There are no references of any kind on the article, and the only mentioning that I could find of this organization in the news was this article that listed it as a charity that received a grant. A web search shows no real coverage outside of its own website. Tjc₆ 14:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Insufficient evidence of notability per WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. After a search on Google Books, I found these: [1] [2] [3] [4] NYCRuss ☎ 00:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly merge with Unification Church as it was founded to promote abstinence (a key UC value), albeit in a non-sectarian way. It's significant because it represents one of several organizations or campaigns to promote specific values or ideas usually associated with religion, but with the hope of doing so without making any attempt at religious conversion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I in no way wish to imply that he's biased or not acting in good faith, I think it is worth mentioning that Uncle Ed above is a member of the Unification Church, and could be considered to have a WP:COI here. Robofish (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Marginally notable organization, I'm sure it can be properly referenced given some time. If not then merge any relevant content with Unification Church, about which there is already a discussion here. -- œ ^™ 00:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the sources, a very minor organization, discussed only in connection with its Unification Church background. Actually, the present article is almost at the point of failing speedy deletion criterion G11 as entirely promotional. There is not really anything substantial worth merging beyond the basic facts of existence. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The most that could be justified is a mention on List of Unification Church affiliated organizations, but I'm not sure if that would be appropriate as I'm not clear how official the links between them are. Robofish (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage and reads like spam. Nuttah (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2010 (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.