Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenwich Leisure Limited

Greenwich Leisure Limited

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It's not clear to me why this page exists or how or why it could ever be bought up to WP's standards.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values	It's the organisation's mission statement	It's the company's own marketing material	Lacks the objective overview required to meet the definition of significant	✘ No
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values	It's the company's website again	It's too close to the subject	Just a list. No prose.	✘ No
https://switchtheplay.com/news/switch-the-play-and-gll-national-news-release/	It says it's a press release	Press releases are put out by the organisation and are not subject to editorial oversight.	Lacks the critical insights and objectivity required for significant coverage.	✘ No
https://www.sportspro.com/insights/analysis/london-2012-olympics-venues-today-london-stadium-velodrome-aquatics-centre/	Appears to be published by a partner organisation	No discusson of the source's reliablity on RS	Article is about former Olympic venues, not Greenwich Leisure Limited	✘ No
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1097435/	Press release aggregation site.	Little to no editorial oversight.	Appears to discus the company's rebrand but not the actual company or its history.	✘ No
https://www.andrewbibby.com/socialenterprise/greenwich-leisure.html	Bibbly is a journalist for hire	Published to journalist website without editorial oversight.	~ Some depth of coverage but it's akin to a press release and clearly primary	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully object to this page being placed suggested for deletion. GLL is notable as one of the UK's larger social enterprises and also runs some of the venues that were used in the 2012 London Olympics, such as the London Aquatics Centre (which has its own Wikipedia page) and is also mentioned on the Zaha Hadid Wikipedia page. There are also quite a number of Olympic and Paralympic medal winners that were supported by GLL's Sport Foundation. I'd like to try and find some independent, impartial secondary sources so the GLL Wikipedia page could meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Could we take it off the list for the time being so I can suggest some changes and then reassess please? Leemann72 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The applicable guideline is WP:NONPROFIT, and it is also noted there is no indication of a WP:BEFORE search done by the nominator. A quick search on ProQuest indicates circa 419 hits for "Greenwich Leisure Limited". Further in-depth analysis would be needed to build an article, but there does seem to be coverage out there including this, in a long standing journal and written by the journal editor. The Guardian newspaper confirms that GLL is the biggest trust in the UK running sports facilities. All told - enough evidence to presume notability under NONPROFIT in my view - even if the article needs lots of work. ResonantDis_tortion 16:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have edited further and added more references to hopefully help improve the article. Leemann72 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel it meets Notability Requirements, but it is time to protect the page so only confirmed editors are able to edit the actual article and nonconfirmed editors and paid editors can only make edit requests on the talk page.--VViking_TalkEdits 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with the Guardian sources it probably meets WP:GNG.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 19:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This and the mentioned Guardian article likely take us to reasonable notability. MWFwiki (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]