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. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 01:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Save the tatas

Save the tatas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

no evidence for notability for the extremely small charity. Only the first item is possibly a RS, but, even if it could be found, it's not enough. Speedy was declined back in 2009. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- non notable company (and / or?) charity. Sourcing does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and I meant to comment sooner, simply nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. here's a link to an archived Associated Press story: [1]. Also, it seems to have caused some controversy: [2]. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Appears to be a trivial controversy and not sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:32, 7 August 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.