Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel's Vineyard
Despite ,  and tons of , lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Mentions of the organization in reliable independent sources are tangential, trivial or routine. Not enough to base a free-standing article on by a wide mile. Article is purely promotional in nature as it stands, and I doubt that reliable sources exist to create an objective and informative article in compliance with . My own searches turned up nothing promising. In fact, I'm having trouble verifying that the "organization" is anything more than a handful of cranks with a fax machine
— User:Dominus, 10:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GOOGLEHITS||WP:LOTSOFSOURCES||WP:PUFFERY||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)