Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project AWARE

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project AWARE

[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)

Subject is not notable and article has been marked as reading like an advert for years. Rivselis (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Nominator Rivselis (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, using "not notable" as an argument should be avoided (please see WP:JNN). Second of all, if you did your research, you would've found sources regarding this topic. Please clarify if this still fails WP:GNG. –eggofreason^talk 18:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'll list some sources: Big Ten Network Herald Mail Media California Diver DeeperBlue KMCH KCRG There can be more sources, but it's enough. –eggofreason^talk 18:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it’s not clear to me why the nominator thinks the topic isn’t notable, given the abundance of sources. Mccapra (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable and there is a lot of sources (i.e. Its website claims to be associated with ten NGOs/INGOs of which I have so far found nine independent citations. Also, I have also found sources for corporate registration et al on the websites of the Australian, British and Californian governments). I have started upgrading the article. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet GNG and ORG to me, with reasonable reliable sustained, broad, and multi national coverage. The current article though is too reliant on primary sources. Aoziwe (talk) 06:52, 17 February 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.