Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl Geeks Scotland

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. Editors can discuss a possible page move on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Geeks Scotland

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

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

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

Fails WP:ORG. 3 of the 4 sources are dead. The remaining source [1] is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Computing, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources available. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added archived versions of the broken links. There are four good references, including two from mainstream newspapers. The article should be moved to Girl Geek Scotland, the organization's correct name.
Keep — clearly, the article needs a rewrite and the inclusion of additional references. However, as per WP:CONTN and WP:NPOSSIBLE, the current state of the article has no bearing on its notability. Reliable and independent sources do exist: I am able to find a decent number of them. I see coverage in The Scotsman, Holyrood, BBC, City A.M., The Independent, and others. I think there is enough to establish notability. GhostOfNoMeme 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Move to Girl Geek Scotland which is the organisation's correct name. GhostOfNoMeme 05:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep found this on The Guardian[2], combined with the sources the wikipedians afore spoke about, should be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and, subsequently, WP:ORGCRIT. However, when saying “I found an article on BBC”, please, add a link as well. That would help discussion to move quicker, as it would be easier to verify the arguments. Vorann Gencov (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above Guardian RS article source stating this is a nonprofit organisation, then basic GNG applies per WP:NONPROFIT, and the subject very much appears to meet that notability level. ResonantDis_tortion 22:19, 17 July 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.