Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corfu Reading Society


 * 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 Draftify. Star  Mississippi  18:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Corfu Reading Society

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Corfu Reading Society

This article does not establish organizational notability and is non-neutrally written. There is only one source provided, a book. We can assume that the book is an independent reliable secondary source, but that it does not constitute significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Promotional material extends from the first paragraph to the last section. In the first paragraph:

In the last section:

A Wikipedia article should describe what third-party reliable sources say about an organization. This article is written from the perspective of the society and tells what the society says about itself. There is no discussion of third parties.

This page was moved from article space to draft space by one reviewer with the notation that it was not ready for article space. However, it was then moved back to article space by its author. Moving it back to draft space unilaterally a second time would be move-warring, and the community can decide on the disposition of the article. The organization probably is notable, but the current article is not a suitable beginning, and should probably be reduced in draft space to a stub and then rewritten from independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations,  and Greece. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - don't see anything so terrible as to delete it in face of obviously passing WP:GNG. AfD is not a place to improve articles. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Draftify: I do see some secondary source coverage online, but as it stands, it's just not ready for mainspace. I am worried, though; the author has gone back to their sandbox and reinstated the copyvio version of the page. Further action may be in order. Iseult   Δx parlez moi 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify the most elegant way forward, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per 's argument. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not oppose a draftify in this situation. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bearian Neither do I. The Greek article that suffered from the society's POV, COI (at least three connected contributors) and copyright infringment, was deleted because of copyright violation and recreated from scratch. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.