Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Together 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 02:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Together Trust

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization. Spammy article about a British non-profit that can't be cleaned up because no reliable sources can be found on which to base a legitimate article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article needs cleaning up, and removal of copyvio. I messed things up on 26 November 2013 when I tagged as copyvio a major addition (to the stub I had created), and notified the editor, but forgot to add it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Another editor meanwhile edited the copyvio section, in contravention of the instructions on the blanking template - but perhaps out of impatience because nothing had happened since my failure to list it. I have now listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 April 7. PamD 16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: longstanding charitable organisation, still active in running schools today. Notability helped by an article on its chief executive which I've just linked. I'm sure editors with access to local history books on Salford and Manchester will find additional independent sources. PamD 16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The new source appears to be a self-submitted "this is how I spend my week" blog on the website of a general non-profit support website (Third Sector). This may well verify that Together Trust is an English charitable organization, but it really doesn't establish notability. Had Third Sector written an independent, unsolicited profile of Together Trust, that might have been a different story. 17:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I also found a 1921 Sheratt and Hughes book on the charity, and have added as Further Reading: Worldcat record (too old for an ISBN). PamD 08:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work, but there are sources out there: 1 , 2, 3. Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article obviously needs to be rewritten. Eric Corbett 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple Google search reveals this book, which devotes several pages to the early history as MSBG. Added with Third Sector coverage, this is clearly notable. An editor with access to local libraries could no doubt multiply the list of sources. Moswento ^talky 08:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and a number of reference sources have been found. Richerman (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.