Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Funding Project

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Funding Project

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

Unreferenced, describes boycott by non-notable group Life Decisions International, for which the WP article has been speedy-deleted three times. Quotes group's "estimate" of boycott's effectiveness. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. The only GNEWS hits I can find are press releases from LifeSiteNews.com, which also appears to be connected with the boycott. MuffledThud (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. It is refereced to the Boycott List, the publication that is the boycott.

2. That a group is small, does not make it non-notable as you say. They have been mentioned numerous times on raido and on the internet/

3. Group's estimate is reasonable accurate. LDI Knows which groups stopped giving to PP as a result of the boycott, therefore they know that it weould be easy with that data to get a very reasonable estimate of the effect of the boycott has done. If Bank X was giving $20,000 a year every year until they were boycotted, then afterwards they gave nothing, it is almost painfully easy to construct a valid estimate of Planned Parenthood's loss as the result of this boycott.

This page gives valuable insights into the uses of modern boycotting, and underscores one of the tactics of the pro life movement that does not get attention at the pro life page.

This is a valuable page and should be left on wikipedia.

Ryan— Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanTKelly (talk • contribs)

Delete as per nom. no references non notable promotion only. Teapotgeorge^Talk 11:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this boycott. Joe Chill (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the standard of significant coverage in reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:34, 20 January 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.