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. For the record, I am entirely setting aside the contributions of the blocked OP, but there remains consensus among other editors that this topic is not notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Blood Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Just mere mentions in the press. And the media sources in the article are not notable enough WP:RSPSOURCES. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• note the article was reviewed by editor FULBERT today, as was my other article Warith_Al_Maawali. Both were immediately nominated for deletion by an editor who has not written any articles of his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollia (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Currently references are entirely routine in nature. No indication of significance. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination is somewhere between incompetence and outright deception. I'm not even sure if the nominator even knows what counts as a "mere mention", because the first three articles I clicked on were entirely about the subject. The Kentucky Today article is from a reporter that's independent of the organization, covering a statewide blood drive. The sources from WEKU and WYMT are local but provide significant coverage. Per WP: AUD and WP: GNG, this is sufficient for a Keep vote. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whose behavior and actions are misleading, but I recommend you in the future to be better informed. And then make some conclusions. Thanks! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the nominator has good intentions. He has never written an article, but he harasses people on Wikipedia by accusing them of being paid and places bogus notices on their pages, all without any proof. This is nothing short of harassment. This post will perhaps shed some light on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joetrip HARRISONSST (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about the article deletion discussion. And you already not for the first time try in any way to blame me without offering any proof! I understand that you are offended by some things, but in the end the wikipedia community will discover your real name and your intentions on wikipedia! P.S Countless times I have said that you are free to open an ANI to make all the statements in case you have any demonstrations that I have anything to do with that discussion. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"in the end the wikipedia community will discover your real name and your intentions on wikipedia" Are you threatening to dox someone? HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is not clear to me! But I'm certainly not making any threats and I'm here in good faith (obviously good faith is finalized where there are editors trying to fool an entire community). I mention that there are discussion pages where you can ask questions or get answers (let's not spam this discussion which is not the right place). Thanks! Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a plain reading of your last message is a threat of WP: OUTING. You may backpedal as much as you want, but for me, that message speaks for itself, and I'm unwilling to consider any redefinition or reinterpretation of it. This has been taken to WP: ANI. Please direct all further correspondence about this matter there. Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide blood drives have been on the in the uk since the 1940's. They are old hat and that doesn't make them notable. We can go through the references if need be. scope_creep^Talk 15:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that matters. "Nationwide blood drives have been on the in the uk since the 1940's" is not a fact that is relevant to any notability criteria. Do a source analysis if you wish; my vote stands as it is. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: None of the references in the article pass WP:SIRS because none of them constitute significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. Searches reveal the same. There are lots of news articles to be found about blood drives, however these do not constitute significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. Almost all of the articles discuss blood drives which is very different to discussing the subject. I did find a couple of very brief stories of the the blood centre moving, but this is routine coverage. Please ping me if anyone finds something I've missed. TarnishedPath^talk 09:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see any WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS for a pass of WP:NORG. Reviewing the sources, Kentucky Today is a lightly rewritten version of this press release; Spectrum News is a lightly rewritten version of this press release; WYMT is a video rehash of this press release; this article is literally a press release; and this article is brief promotional local news based entirely on quotes from an organization representative. None of these sources passes NORG's test of WP:AUD either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2025 (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.