Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building and Social Housing 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. Sandstein 10:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Building and Social Housing Foundation

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

Highly promotional article with no references. Reads like a copy of various other adverts online. No evidence that as a topic it is relevant or of encyclopedic value. I can't find any substantial independent reliable sources in searching. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It's not possible to do an adequate search for sources about this organization without knowing that it is now known as World Habitat]. The fact that nominator didn't mention this makes me suspect yet another failure of WP:BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

But this is not the article on the World Habitat Awards or World Habitat Day, so I can't see that it makes any difference, there still isn't any viable secondary sourcing. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To indent or not to indent? That is the question.

- Can you consider indenting your replies properly so that other people can follow the conversation later? If you do edit your comment for proper indentation, please indent this one to match. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~My indentations are always like this. Bullet for comment that stands alone, more bullets and colons for dependant replies as looks about right. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you replied to my comment and didn't indent your reply more than the comment to which you replied. Riddle me that, PoT! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reply was more for the benefit of others coming to the discussion, rather than aimed at you, because you have already done a BEFORE, so you already know about those other articles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will hat this as hopelessly off-topic, but I will read up on indenting styles. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article as it stands resembles website content, authored by someone connected with the organisation, but given its lifespan and activities, I expected the article should be salvageable with 3rd party references. However, I am finding little for this: aside from routine competition announcement coverage, an official is quoted in the Guardian, 2011 and an item in the same newspaper summarised a piece of commissioned research, 2012. Even the organisation's renaming, apparently sometime in the last few months, has gone under the radar, aside from the Blog post mentioned above. Unless someone can identify better, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relisted twice and still no refs. Szzuk (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2018 (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.