Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBSOTalk

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PBSOTalk

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

Article about an organization which does not seem to meet WP:NORG. Most references are from tabloid gossip rags or primary sources. There are 3 reliable sources which all talk to the same event but do not support the notability of this group specifically. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOT NEWS, and there are BLP considerations in addition. Tho the article itself isn't about a person, thereis significant negative BLP material, and the sourcing isn't good enough for that. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John M. Dougan ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 21:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BadVolf reddogsix (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, which doesn't surprise me after reading this article. It's more activism than encyclopedia. Minor show that wouldn't be heard of at all without a single event. Lack of significant coverage about the show by reliable third parties. The fact that they are involved in a news story doesn't mean there is coverage about them. More a case of WP:NOTNEWS than actual notability. If kept, this has some serious BLP issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2016 (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.