Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pygmy Projects

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy Projects

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

An article based on unreliable sources since 2004. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only video game reliable sources search hit was a passing mention. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thet did win the demo competition at Assemble 1993. As reported by a reliable source.[1] // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Behold, what wikipedia looked like in 2004! Hard to argue this is notable under 2014 standards.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we have reliable sources saying they won at least two awards thus fulfilling WP:NONPROFIT. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winning two awards at Assembly apparently isn't enough to receive extended press because other than those two sentences, we can't source anything else about this group to reliable sources. czar ♔ 12:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sourcing issue, not a notability issue. // Liftarn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two are one and the same. Significant coverage is the first prong of the general notability guideline. czar ♔ 11:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources with significant coverage, so this fails WP:GNG. Last involvement appears to be from 2001 so it's unlikely to gain more notability in the future. Current available sources would make this article a permastub at best. It is my opinion that WP:NONPROFIT does not apply. -- intgr [talk] 11:46, 19 September 2014 (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.