Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Golden Apple Foundation

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Apple Foundation

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

I was about to start abbreviating this outrageously promotional article, but I don't think the subject is notable . It's been here from 2009; about a dozen eds. made trivial corrections, but nobody seems to have thought whether it belongs here in the first place. I think that's typical for articles from that period, when it seems we accepted a remarkable level of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article in its current form seems promotional. However, clicking on the news button above, leads me to think that this passess WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google News search shows plenty of reliable sources, such as the Chicago Daily Herald, Examiner, and several local publications without even digging into archives or investigating deeper. Suggest COI tags for the user and article and taking an axe to the article to remove uncited promotion. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 07:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People have said that there are lots of reliable sources, yet have not provided any, either here or on the article. Unless and until that happens, I will vote delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs independent coverage, and I don't see any. Tigerboy1966 14:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete both as hopelessly promotional and also as no true evidence of notability I would consider rewriting it, but it cannot be done without sources. And no matter what the published sources are that might be findable, the present article would need total rewriting--it could not possibly be abridged. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of third party reliable sources and due to promotional concerns -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:52, 26 May 2012 (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.