Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Purpose UK

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, consensus is that the sources in the article are sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Purpose UK

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be self references, press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Hu12 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:N. – ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it looks notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The links used on the page are self references, press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment : but this concern seems to be notable .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple instances of secondary coverage, I guess I just don't see the notability issue the nominator percieves. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would help if the nominator, who, based on previous nominations, seems to consider himself spam-fighter-in-chief, didn't use the typical spammers tactic of underlining things which he thinks we might be too stupid to notice if he didn't do so. Please just let the words speak for themselves. Your presentation style has made it impossible for me to judge this objectively for the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be both incredibly important and notable. James Wilson 01:33, 29 March 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.202.92 (talk)
Keep sufficient sources for notability. DGG (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2008 (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.