Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flagon and Trencher

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. Star Mississippi 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagon and Trencher

[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)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, History, Organizations, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found some pieces that document the activity of the organization. Take a look [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Piscili (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't provide significant coverage and/or aren't reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to agree with the nom. The sources don't appear to be reliable and keeping this article based on the provided coverage doesn't make sense to me. Clearly fails GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A clearer source eval on the newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, Where are the newly found sources? Both @Toweli: and I objected to keeping the article based on the coverage provided on 24 September, as it’s nowhere near reliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, A clearer and deeper source evaluation is appreciated, along with more inputs for clear consensus. The presence of multiple references with passing mentions could mean there might be some notability, but sans SIGCOV. Hence, relisted for more inputs. If not, it can be deleted soon. Happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2024 (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.