Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America1000 03:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Project Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page nominated as it has no in-line references and seems to be written as an advertisement. Text likely pasted from a website. Mountain cirque 15:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. "No in-line references" is not a reason for deletion. Advertising would be if the article was "without any relevant or encyclopedic content", but that's not the case here; it may need some attention in this regard, but it's hardly unsalvageable. Copyright violation of a website would be if there was evidence that the whole article, including previous versions in its history, was pasted from a website, but the nominator presents no such evidence and the article has a seven-year history, including a complete rewrite in February 2015. Subject is notable, as evidenced by significant coverage in The Glasgow Herald  and The Daily Telegraph . Qwfp (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may well be salvageable with a complete re-work, referencing and removal of weasel words, also to remove many of the unreferenced lists included in the article. Just to note that the complete re-write was done seemingly by a Project Trust staff member (http://projecttrust.org.uk/author/davel/) and uses the username 'DavidlyonsPT'. The external references included there are good but need to actually be used in the article properly. Mountain cirque 10:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe this user has added advertising language relating and linking back to this page on several other pages, including Isle of Coll. Without rapid and extensive changes made to this article, I don't believe its an important enough topic to worry about keeping around for its encyclopedic value. There are numerous other organizations like this, many of which do not have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.hill7 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  11:58, 17 August 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.