Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Crime Scene Clean Up Association

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 speedy delete. G11; (not notable either, but G11 is sufficient as a reason) DGG ( talk ) 08:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Crime Scene Clean Up Association[edit]

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

Professional organization which appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Crime scene cleanup in general is certainly notable, and the provided references do a good job of covering the general subject, but they say little to nothing about this organization in particular, and I didn't find any material with which to shore it up. --Finngall ^talk 14:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by nominator. About the only thing this article is doing is promoting the for-profit business organization of the association's president. In this regard, take a look at the list of for-profit web sites that appears in the article's talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the changes made with the additional sources and notability Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.130.141 (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was blank the prior version of the article's Talk page, add a cite to a YouTube video, and add a reference to a state website that doesn't discuss your association at all. Looking further into the page's history, I see that the (now-blanked) member list, plus much of the article text, was added by accounts that are now blocked as sockpuppets of DanaTodd, per the investigation here. My opinion remains Delete. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2015 (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.