Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Trust (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An advertorially toned page for an unremarkable charity. Significant RS coverage not found. The first AfD in 2016 closed as no consensus, due to low participation. The following sources were presented at the AfD: "significant coverage in The Glasgow Herald [1] and The Daily Telegraph [2]." I do not find them convincing as both articles are based on interviews with the org's executives. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a PR release. Ofthe referencesat least some of them only include it among a group of alternatives. DGG ( talk ) 13:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is so promotional that I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. Most of the references only mention the subject briefly,several of them as DGG says just including it in a list with other organisations. One of the references doesn't mention it at all. One is a blog. Just one is a newspaper report which mentions it several times, but even that does not amount to substantial coverage. The king of the sun (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteReferences fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 26 October 2017 (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.