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. Sandstein 09:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goats of Anarchy[edit]

Goats of Anarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Although there is some minor news coverage of the blog-like, "feel good", human interest kind, I don't think there is a depth of coverage needed to establish notability. All significant contributors are single purpose accounts (some with a clear username connection to the subject) so this is apparently the equivalent of an autobiography. ANDREVV (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep this and this and show mor depth of coverage Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although there are some news articles covering this group, I wouldn't call it substantial. It is routine stuff more for its entertainment value than anything of substance. (The article is clearly the product of self-promotion, too, but that's an editing issue not a keep/delete issue.) Deli nk (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deli. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a marginal topic. A very well-written and well-referenced article would not have come to AfD, and there are enough available reliable sources to make that possible, but only barely. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:NORG & significant RS coverage not found. A poorly referenced, WP:ADVOCACY page; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2018 (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.