Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy City Initiative


 * 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. Ignoring two WP:SPA comments, there's near unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy City Initiative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable initiative fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Happy City Initiative have had significant coverage in national and international media for the past 3 years for its projects and campaigns. None of the references used in this article are advertising or press releases from Happy City Initiative, but rather independent, objective and reliable secondary sources. The charity are notable due to their new and innovative ideas relating to measuring happiness and prosperity on a city scale, which have never been developed anywhere else in the world. - BrizzBee (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 *  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Several references provided, but they're exclusively local. I'm not seeing the "significant coverage in national and international media" claimed above--I found some passing mentions in national media, but nothing of significance.  Needs the promotional language toned down if kept.  -- Finngall   talk  16:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Source-bombing doesn't mean notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. No source bombing has been done. Just facts. Happy City is a not for profit charity to promote happiness and wellbeing. No promoting has been going on. The page is just showing about who Happy City are.  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - promotional article for a non-notable local initiative. As already mentioned, mostly local coverage doesn't establish notability. Also, statements like "They have received recognition for ambition and innovation from Zero Carbon Britain: Rethinking the Future[2] and World Happiness Report 2015[3]" are misusing their sources for a false -or vastly exaggerated- claim: ref #2 is a self-written guest article by the organization's founders, ref #3 is a passing 1-sentence mention without any specific details (both sources are available online, but unfortunately not linked in the article). The asserted significant coverage in independent national or international media could not be found (via Google search). GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per WP:PROMO; content is strictly advertorial and i'm sure can be found on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable enough to me. There seem to be plenty of different google hits on this subject, more than in than in the article at this point in time.  I have not checked them out in detail, but they seem to be robust enough and not primary.  So what if it has a promotional tone.  Just fix it, not delete it.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per GermanJoe, I see no in-depth, significant coverage here. Perhaps this is worthy of a one-sentence mention in culture of Bristol, but not a standalone article. Neutralitytalk 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect over to Culture of Bristol so that the useful information here (unfortunately buried in a lot of puffery-type language) is placed in the proper context is what I'd prefer. However, I wouldn't really object to deletion either; the above arguments are rather persuasive. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2016 (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.