Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steadfast 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. Hut 8.5 17:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Steadfast Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a totally non-notable organisation, and the article does not attempt to demonstrate any notability. There seems to be no reliable, independent evidence of the existence of this group, let alone of its activities and significance. The only Google hits are to its own website, and to comments in right-wing or anti-fascist blogs. I could find no Google Books or Google News references. After I prodded the article, an editor inserted a citation from a local newspaper which makes a passing reference to the organisation, but this still does not establish, nor even assert, notability. The editor also inserted a link to a BBC article; but this does not even mention the group RolandR (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

But the article referenced made note of a £2000 pound donation made by the organization, this is just one of their actions. The other referenced article was to prove that such a cause (campaign for St. Edmund's patronage of England) existed. Willknowsalmosteverything (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete Why is this organisation notable again? I can't see how it passes the WP:GNG. Ok it may of had a brief mention in mainstream media but so do lots of things, doesn't mean it is notable. IJA (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 8 December 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.