Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springfield, benefiting THON

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield, benefiting THON

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

Already tagged for notability, this is a minor fundraising effort at PSU, non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete-A7 - There is no claim to any notability in the article, and it includes one section that is nothing but namecrufting BLP violations. Goodbye...The sooner the better. John from Idegon (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be CSD'ed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A7. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am familiar with this organization, but it lacks significant coverage in independent sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing yet suggesting any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:50, 11 April 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.