Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spurgeon's

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. Article has been "despammed". The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spurgeon's

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

It is advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It wasn't quite so blatant an advertisement until about 3 hours before it was nominated. Someone thought it would be helpful to throw in "Updated content from Spurgeons Marketing department". Here was what it looked like before the corporate makeover [1]. However, the history also indicates that it's never been sourced to anything other than the website, and I find surprisingly little in my search, whether under "Spurgeon's" or "Spurgeons". Mandsford 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - That update consists of material copied from the organisation's web site and was a copyvio. I've reverted the main content back to the version prior to the introduciton of the copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The charity dates back to 1867 so there is likely much inthe way of siourcing that won't be easily available online. [2] and [3] provides some minor mentions. At the very least, it should be a merge to Charles Haddon Spurgeon who founded the charity. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Whpq's argument. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2010 (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.