Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl and rind

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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl and rind

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

Article is either about an un-notable organization or is a hoax. Searching google news/books turns up nothing relevant, regular google search doesn't even turn up unreliable sources. Borderline Speedy, but AGF, I'm nominating it here. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. I asked the author for sources when the article was first posted, but all that has been produced is a 1912 NY Times clip which does not mention the society. I have added above a "findsources" for "Pearl & Rind" which the talk page says is the official name, but that draws just as blank. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax or unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable, non-existent. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In all probability it's a hoax. But even if it does exist, there is absolutely no evidence that it does, let alone that it's notable. The subject is completely unverifiable. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2011 (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.