Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein VI 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 keep. Even excluding an inherited argument, there's clear consensus that the foundation possesses sufficient notability to be free-standing if needs be. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation[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)

Not notable on its own right, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major media sourcing provides a good deal of detail, even though the coverage is in the context of the Epstein scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Jacobin (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is adequate to establish notability. At worst, this would merit a merge, but it's substantial enough to stand on its own. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing is sufficient. Also, the notoriety of its founder does provide a further measure of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was created over six years ago, in March 2013, but has attracted a number of editors in July 2019 and the numbers will only increase. It is obviously of interest to editors, with ever-increasing coverage in the media, thus Wikipedia users would not be well served if it were to be deleted. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 July 2019 (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.