Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volunteering Solutions (VolSol)

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteering Solutions (VolSol)

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

Per WP:NCORP specifically WP:CORPDEPTH:

"Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

Subject lacks significant coverage and additional reliable sources for verification could not be found - therefore delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence of notability (i.e. no in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy). Citobun (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which makes no particular claim to encyclopaedic notability, just describing the firm's business. I found one additional reference, in a Marie Claire article (not especially positive), but neither that nor the existing given references are indicating more than a firm going about its business. Not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is in fact A7 material, let alone nothing beyond actual substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 30 October 2016 (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.