Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucestershire Geology Trust


 * 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. Without prejudice to an article on The Geology Trusts. j⚛e deckertalk 22:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Gloucestershire Geology Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does not seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A page on the umbrella organisation The Geology Trusts might be worthwhile and could list the member trusts, but I can't see the need for a page about an individual local trust. Qwfp (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Receiving a grant doesn't confer notability and the only other source is a 1 sentence mention in a section dedicated to UK local geological groups. Does not meet WP:GNG.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is probably a plausible redirect to Regionally important geological site. If we are going to have an article on the umbrella organisation called The Geology Trusts, it would probably make more sense to move this article to that location and rework it, than to start from scratch. Since this has been included in a book on the history of geoconservation, it ought to be possible to fit this in somewhere by redirecting or moving it. (Hint: look at the context in which the book places it). James500 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If I read this index correctly, it has two pages of coverage in Geology Today in addition to the aforementioned book and the BBC news article. There are some other results in GScholar. James500 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (sing)  @ 19:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Worthy organisation but simply fails our notability guidelines. I agree a The Geology Trusts page would be good but there is nothing substantial on the umbrella organisation, here, to justify moving/editing this page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2014 (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.