Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trevor Project

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 keep. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 12:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Trevor Project

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

the article is a promotion of the organization thus violating WP:NOTADVERTISING Jonnymoon96 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article easily meets WP:GNG with 50 sources cited in the article. The article is not especially promotional, and even if it were, AFDISNOTCLEANUP.- Mr X 21:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The article certainly reads like promotion, and a quick survey of the sources shows a large number are either connected with the organization , press releases, trivial mentions, or announcements. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. It could have a million terrible sources and 3 good ones, but would still merit keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing in the article is really bad despite the fact that it has so many: a lot of them are press releases, etc. That being said, it is not written in an overly promotional tone, and it does include enough references to independent sources that get it over GNG without needing to do a search outside of the article itself. Clear keep, but it could use cleanup on the citations. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above; the article does need cleanup but there's no case for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup but definitely as far from deletion as possible. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has enough sources to establish notability and it does not have any promotional tone. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mind boggles. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination. Unfortunately the nominator does not clearly indicate that they understand AfD criteria. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As already mentioned, it needs some work but it is not irretrievably promotional to the point of deletion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyBallioni. The sources aren't perfect, but there are some that fit WP:RS/WP:IS. --Hirsutism (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it can be improved.—‎Lost Whispers _talk 14:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable, even if the article has issues they're not TNT-worthy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 25 June 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.