Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Editors and Proofreaders


 * 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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Society for Editors and Proofreaders

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Although it appears in various writer's manuals, I cannot find anything better than passing mentions with GNews, GBooks and GScholar. There is just not enough significant coverage to address the article's current issues (copyvio, advert, 1 primary source). HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I have speedy tagged it as such. SwisterTwister   talk  06:16, 30 January 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.