Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foam (organization)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Foam (organization)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is full of primary sources, I could not find third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Organizations,  and Belgium.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe these could establish notability?:
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pn3t4
 * https://news.asu.edu/20191003-sun-devil-athletics-launches-legacy-brick-program
 * https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/jun/16/diy-labs-exciting-alternative-university-science-research Rlink2 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot find any secondary sources on this organization. Above are a passing mention in the BBC article and the ASU article, the Guardian article is written by a a scientific adviser for FoAM Kernow, but not about Foam. Description as "de facto new-media think tank" doesn't make sense. Neither does "In 2001, FoAM became an independent, distributed entity with cells in Brussels and Amsterdam." Fails WP:GNG. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. The sources cited in the article aren't independent, and I agree with WAU that the ones mentioned above don't provide enough significant coverage to contribute toward notability. Searching is difficult since "foam" is such a common word, but my queries did not identify enough sourcing to meet WP:NORG. There's a bit of coverage here, but it is of uncertain independence (most of the content seems to come from an interview with the group's founder) and, in any event, can't push the organization over the notability threshold on its own. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:44, 15 April 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.