Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuel For Truth

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel For Truth[edit]

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

Although with this version and a previous slightly larger version (but still not acceptable), this could've been speedied and actually was tagged by Cryptic (whom I'm inviting for comment) but I'm nominating instead as I'm not sure if it can be improved. This has stayed since May 2005 and the best results I found were [1], this and this. Chances are this is not notable, or at best, should be mentioned elsewhere and it has not been improved after all this time. Also pinging past editors RHaworth and Tassedethe. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no memory of this article (no surprise - I tagged it ten years ago, almost to the day). It wasn't properly a speedy then - this was well before G11 existed, before A7 applied to anything except individuals, and before we speedied copyvios under G12 instead of giving them a week of living death at WP:CP. On the other hand, I can't find any revisions that wouldn't be speedyable as at least one of those three. If someone wants to write an article here, all power to you; but there's no good version to revert to. Delete. —Cryptic 02:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at GNews and GBooks, can't find any sources, and as written this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) very clearly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ten years ago, almost to the day, I said "too soon" and removed Cryptic's tag. But in those ten years not a shred of independent evidence has been provided. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable organization. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:27, 11 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.