Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's United Community


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

People's United Community

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No verifiable, reliable, published, 3rd party sources to indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-07t19:32z 19:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete News coverage of the organization and its activities: BBC, Birmingham News, both about the group's opposition to flu vaccination. Their website was cited in a book . Another book said something about them on a page which is not viewable at Google Book Search:  Does not seem to rise to encyclopedia notability. Edison (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The book is from Xlibris, a strong indicator of self-publishing. The website is being cited as evidence for a claim that the British government is engaged in a large-scale conspiracy to cover up MPs being imprisoned after being convicted of child sex offenses. I'm not sure this really counts as a meaningfully sane secondary source. Shimgray | talk | 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve, or delete with no prejudice for recreation. There is no NPOV version of this article. But at least, with the pre-Special:Contributions/MahdDogg version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_United_Community&action=historysubmit&diff=417649702&oldid=415495753 diff), you get as far away as possible from a BLP-violating hounding of the group. Not only are Google News results confounded by hits for the People's United Community Foundation, but the only news hit actually returned by Google News, Birmingham news source shows evidence that they may be more often referred to as THE People's United Community, or TPUC. It is also a little unfortunate that the BBC does a story on them, as Edison's research shows, but that does not actually make it into a Google News search. What else might it have missed? Anarchangel (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Weak delete' There may be a notable topic somewhere in there, but with all the non-sentences, spelling mistakes, unsupported assertions and opinions presented as facts, it's very difficult to tell. As it stands the article seems to me so bad it's pointless to keep it.113.73.125.202 (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this entry is based on over 1 year of research into the organisation and contains the only references regarding the TPUC that are available, the words and actions of it's own users. The previous note regarding "non-sentences" "spelling mistakes" "unsupported assertions" and "opinions presented as facts" is disingenuous and is clearly made by someone who has not followed the reference links provided in the article which presents the source for those assertions based on the words of the members of the TPUC forums, the most active part of the community. This attempt at deletion of the article is simply TPUC themselves not wishing themselves to be viewed in an unfavourable light, though after in depth study of the group this is an honest presentation of the facts. MahdDogg (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards delete; there's a slim amount of sources out there - one news event and one interview - but nothing which really seems to establish notability. Writing a response article which criticisms their claims is no doubt fun, and I'd have enjoyed doing it myself, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedic material. Shimgray | talk | 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to Shimgray, I would say you make a valid point - rather than simply bowing to pressure from TPUC themselves to have the critical article removed. I wouldn't argue with deletion on this basis. MahdDogg (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2011 (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.