Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPICENTER

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPICENTER

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Sourcing is poor, even after it was "improved". Myself and others have failed to find any good secondary sources for this organization. Most of the sources in the article are primary or non-RS, or do not cover the subject in enough detail. Notability is not established and article seems promotional in nature. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, I can't see how it meets GNG. I removed some of the worse cruft, but it still reads as mostly promotional.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2024 (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.