Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Corporation o' Squaremen

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 12:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Corporation o' Squaremen[edit]

[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)

Borderline, but I don't think there is the coverage for a standalone article, and no clear merge/redirect target. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, and I think that is due to lack of notability rather than neglect. Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did a quick Google search and I'm seeing that it's actually "Ye Corporation O' Squaremen" rather than "The Corporation o' Squaremen". Even then, a gbooks search for both names only brought up books about the Freemasons which fail to mention the group, zero hits on gnews and gnewspapers, and all the gsearch results are primary sources, though there's 26 hits on Newsbank but I think that would just prove they're still active today CiphriusKane (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay gone through the 26 hits on Newsbank, and none of them are useful as the only ones that I'm certain reference this specific organisation are either brief mentions about charitable donations and advertising a radio broadcast from 2013 that's unavailable CiphriusKane (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source, a book which dedicates a couple of paragraphs to the organisation CiphriusKane (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 6 July 2021 (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.