Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:28, 24 June 2010

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Organizations and social programs. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Organizations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:ORG.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Organizations deletion

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Greek Philosophy

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

As has been discussed in the past, a website is not enough to justify notability. A google search for this association yields three results, with the first two overlapping. The society does not seem to have any notability beyond its website and a mention on another "link" gathering site. There are three more publications on other sites, but nothing goes past the first page. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 14:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize for the stubby state of this article as created. I have since expanded it a little. I suppose I have been getting complacent. This organization is responsible for numerous publications, and is located in the birthplace of philosophy. It is an international organization and considered to be a very strong organization insofar as the world of philosophy is concerned. A google scholar search revealed 46 results. I wonder if you would consider withdrawing your nomination?Greg Bard 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No !vote, but how many of those 46 are (mostly self-reported) author affiliations? Some of them are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scholar search shows papers, but many places are papers who have been published by the IAGP, members of the IAGP, or a citation. I am not sure of the voracity of this company. There seems to be one paper that appears in most, and some are self-reported. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to say "veracity" rather than "voracity"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Veracity, not voracity. Sorry. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 22:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (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.

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 no consensus. Perfectly reasonable nomination, but the arguments in favor of the article are enough that I don't see a consensus to delete. Improved sourcing still is desireable, of course. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Morris

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

Will all due respect to the work put in by the article's creater and quasi-sole contributor, there is nothing here in this undersourced article, or in websearches for 'Hong Kong Morris' which indicates that this organisation is in any way notable. Most of the information is, by definition, only known to individuals in the club, and is largely unverifiable to reliable third party sources Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, and without prejudice to further thoughts I may have, there are at least two reasons why this morris side is notable: (1) it continues to flourish as a notable example of the resilience of Western cultural activity in postcolonial Hong Kong; and (2) in the 1980s it may well have been the largest morris side in the world.

The second point will need verification, but I'm pretty sure it's true.

What have people got against the side, anyway? There are plenty of other Wikipedia articles on morris sides, none of which are as notable as Hong Kong Morris, in my humble view.

Djwilms (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's plenty of Western cultural activity in Hong Kong after 1997; no scholars or journalists appear to regard this group as a notable example of such activity. From a Google search, there do not appear to be any non-trivial, reliable, third-party sources about this group; the entire article has been written based on someone's personal knowledge of the group, or their own website. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of writing. cab (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to incubating/userfying the article. There may be sources (as discussed below), but the article as it stands needs a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's standards --- which should be done by someone who has access to the sources and is NOT a member of the group. cab (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the point on size. Most UK and US Morris sides are lucky to get between 10 and 20 members. At its peak, in 1986, the Hong Kong Morris had more than 50 active members. I'm pretty sure no Cotswold side elsewhere in the world can beat that record, and the fact that the side was 'provincial', i.e. located in a British colony with no other sides nearby, makes its numbers all the more notable.

Another point, which I feel needs wider discussion, is that it is absurd to try to enforce the 'notability' criteria. This pass has been sold long ago, whether we like it or not. There are any number of articles on Wikipedia on topics that, to the fair-minded reader, are not notable in any way. Wikipedia, for better or worse, has become a repository of quaint and curious information (I have improved my own education by reading the articles on some of the western world's more obscure sexual practices, for example), and we can't put back the clock.

I am perfectly happy to ground the Hong Kong Morris's notability on its size, if you don't accept that its survival after 1997 is in itself notable. Though some people seem to think it is, judging by the reference in the second paragraph of this website: [1].

Djwilms (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Djwilms, despite what you've said about HK Morris, there is a notability criteria that we need to apply to articles. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. And you're absolutely right, there are a number of articles on WP that cover topics that are not notable. That only means they should be nominated for deletion, their existence does not justify the creation of articles on other non-notable topics. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Notability criteria carefully, and it seems to me that this article is eminently justifiable on the grounds that in 1986 the team was the largest Cotswold morris side in the world, despite being based in a provincial location like Hong Kong. If that's not notable, what is? Neither you nor the previous contributor have addressed this point at all.

Djwilms (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources, not by size or location or Wikipedia having other articles on similar topics. Please see WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, cab (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm trying to dig out an influential 1984 publication by the Morris Ring, called, I think, simply The Morris Dance, that showcased around ten of the world's leading morris sides, with articles and photographs. Hong Kong Morris was one of them, and I remember that the article title was 'Even in Hong Kong ...' A quotation from that will, I think, amply demonstrate the team's notability. I've got it at home somewhere, and will get back to you in a day or so.

Djwilms (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once deleted, a reproduction is tiresome and then energy put behind, such a lengthy article gets wasted. I found it interesting, and making wiki interesting , is what we all do. We have to measure an article with all the given rules, if they are contentious and leads to further debates. This article is good information, and will never invite any mutiples opinions. Keep it as long as it is not harmful. CosmasIndi (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — CosmasIndi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- ~~Extremely disappointing to see such blatant meatpuppetry in a debate for an article that was already riddled with conflict-of-interest issues. cab (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Not going to press this issue because it doesn't make too much difference. Djwilms' explanation is below. cab (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what 'meatpuppetry' (what a ridiculous term!) is, but I can assure you that I have not attempted to mobilise my Wikipedia fan club, and that I have no idea who CosmasIndi is. I am, of course, grateful for his (or her) support, and am also glad that he/she found the article interesting. I aim to please.

As I mentioned earlier, I am trying to locate documentation which will amply demonstrate the notability of the Hong Kong Morris. I intend to win this absurd argument on the merits of my case, and will get back to this page shortly.

Djwilms (talk)

Something very strange is going on when a new contributor shows up on a week-old AfD debate directly after leaving a comment on the talk page of the article's main author. Regardless, administrators generally ignore "keep" arguments based on reasons like "the article doesn't hurt anyone" or "it's interesting" anyway, regardless of who they're coming from.

More importantly --- the source you mention I assume is the newsletter mentioned here [2]. Well, are there any other sources? WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ... Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." Regards, cab (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw CosmasIndi's comment on my talk page only after I wrote to you. He appears to be an Indian Christian who has recently involved himself in a discussion, in which I am heavily involved, on the sources for the article Ahatallah. I assume that he found this page (since Morris dancing is probably outside his normal areas of interest) by looking at my recent edits. I did not ask him to intervene on my behalf and am surprised (though flattered) that he did so on his own initiative. Your accusations of meatpuppetry are quite unwarranted.

The source you have identified is, I think, the regular newsletter. The publication I am looking for was a one-off booklet, The Morris Tradition, published in 1984. I know I have it at home, and as tomorrow is a public holiday in Hong Kong I will try to unearth it then. There were also several articles (often with accompanying photographs) on the Hong Kong Morris in the South China Morning Post and the Hong Kong Standard in the 1980s and 1990s, but I don't know whether it's possible to retrieve the text of these articles.

Djwilms (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Standard's online archives go back to 1994; the SCMP's to 1993. HKU has archives going farther back, but you have to have an HKU library login (faculty, staff, student, or friend of the library). You would find people are more willing to assume good faith if you weren't writing an article about a group of which you're a member ... cab (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if only on the basis of one voter and the main author of the article being accused of collusion and meatpuppetry (the delete vote lost the argument when that happened). Having said that, I enjoy looking at the article again in a couple of weeks to some SCMP etc. references, and if at all possible, some actual Chinese language newspapers - even as presumably a guailo activity pre-1997 it would be surprising if the performance on the container and the one for Patton did not get into 蘋果日報? Djwilms you might also want to add a short line about how (apparently) the mainland name is 莫里斯舞 (New Oxford English-Chinese Dictionary, Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2007), and how the British Council considers this form of dancing worth promoting as UK culture source for you here. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the elegant amendments to 'Invention of Traditions', and thanks also for that information on Chinese names for morris: most interesting. In fact, at one point we used to use 莫里斯舞 in our name, though Ancient English Dance Platoon eventually won out because 'Moh lei si', a direct transliteration of 'morris', meant nothing to Hong Kong Chinese audiences. When we toured in Taiwan in 1989 there was some debate among our interpreters on what to call my concertina, an instrument that had not yet featured on Chinese radar. Accordians and melodeons are 'hand-wind pianos' (shoufengqin), and my concertina was duly christened a 'six-corner piano' (liujiaoqin). I subsequently became the 'six-sided windbag' to most of the side's members.

I would love to find good sources for this article (look at all my other articles, they are all punctiliously sourced), and now that I have learned that I can access SCMP and HKS articles back to the early 90s (for a price, no doubt), I hope I can begin providing the documentation that we would all like to see.

Djwilms (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome, though I was sorely tempted to delete out the Manila bells bit, as being a bit too unconstipated for Wikipedia. And yes as a happy coincidence of this deletion discussion I did browse some of your examplarily sourced articles on Mar Thoma etc. I think we all agree that Newspaper articles are perfectly reasonable sources for "local interest" articles like this; for example CaliforniaAliBaba's excellent Tianweiban article is built on the regulation 3 newspaper sources. If the access isn't pay-per-look then I wonder if you'd consider using the access to decent sources to write a new more general article e.g. Gweilo subculture in the category:Hong Kong culture, linking onwards to Hong Kong Morris, Hong Kong Sevens, Lan Kwai Fong, Hash House Harriers, etc.etc., since Gweilo doesn't contain anything of interest, and from an anthropological point of view the Mid-Levels Gweilo must be/have been one of the "notable" Hill Tribes of Asia. Cheers In ictu oculi (and btw - I added 六角琴 to en.wiktionary as "English concertina". Odd that Taiwanese in 1989 should not have know an instrument reasonably well known in mainland China today). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there must be an official Chinese term for concertina (oddly enough, I've never bothered to look it up; perhaps I should). Liujiaoqin was coined by our Taiwanese interpreter on the spot because he wanted to talk about our instruments, (melodeons, concertinas, accordians) and shoufengqin was the only term he knew in Chinese. None of us could help him out, so that's what he came up with.

Gweilo subculture, eh? ... You inspire me! But do you think it's a sufficiently notable topic for Wikipedia?

I think I need to fiddle with the reference to Blow the Man Down. Phil's song was not that one, but a different one, with a chorus that went something like this (I'm quoting from memory, not having heard the song for over a quarter of a century):

Farewell Mister Rooney, Ta Ta Mister Lynch,

Come Regan give my kind regards to Jim and Andy Clinch,

Farewell [somebody else Irish], Let's tell the neighbours round,

I'm off to be a Chinaman, for Hong Kong I'm bound.

The most memorable line in the song was 'I'll wear my hair in a long pigtail like Rooney's donkey's tail.' He also drinks 'gunpowder tea' at one point.

Interestingly, we all thought it was the only English folksong in existence that mentioned Hong Kong. Not so, evidently, and thanks for drawing that to my attention. I'll probably finesse that sentence by calling Phil's song 'one of the very few English folksongs to mention Hong Kong, etc', and either removing the reference to Blow the Man Down altogether or relegating it to an informative footnote.

I've now found the booklet I was looking for, and have added a reference to our appearance in The Morris Tradition in 1985.

Djwilms (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please do not mistake me with User:Djwilms. am from India, as mentioned earlier, me and User:Djwilms were having a debate around the article Ahathalla. I was just spying his edits and found the article on Hong Kong Morris.....:-). I found something new and interesting, hence thought of posting an opinion. If not in wiki, I would have never known about the Morris. Also sockpuppet investigations are already up against me, and anyone who touches Ahathalla .... :-) Cheers.CosmasIndi (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 12:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found one of the sources I was looking for, and have added a reference in the section Early History to the feature on the Hong Kong Morris in the Morris Ring publication The Morris Tradition in 1985.

Djwilms (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added a telling photograph from 1994. I can count 36 dancers in the photograph alone, and there were also others in the UK who didn't attend the twentieth anniversary celebrations.

Djwilms (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2010 (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.

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 keep. Jafeluv (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Queer Organization

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

Can not find sufficient proof of notability either in references given or search. James (T C) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, solely passing mentions in only three to four news sources at most. Nothing substantive available on the organization. Blurpeace 02:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google archive searches for Iranian Queer Organization and Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization bring up multiple articles with substantive content that establish the notability of the organization. I'll try to add more reliable sources to the article. Gobonobo ^T ^C 05:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great, Thank you Gobonobo. James (T C) 07:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Gobonobo.Jeppiz (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Movementarian (Talk) 11:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Misleading information. This organization founder is Arsham Parsi and there is lots of articles and videos on major international media about it and they will be found on the net. Goshtasbiran 08:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inaccurate information is never a reason for deleting an article. The issue here is whether the organization is notable or not. If it is, and if the information is inaccurate, the information could be changed. As you say that it has received extensive coverage in international media, your vote to delete it looks surprising.Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of newer users who have been reverting the article to a version that contains inaccuracies and text that appears to be copied directly from the IRQO website. Please check out the article again. I think you will find that it does not have misleading information. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly notable. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This organization exists. ILGA which is a [[3]] inst broadcast news from IRQO http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/mhWGbSg1Ng Raham20 (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (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.

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 redirect to Free Gaza Movement. T. Canens (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FreeGaza

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

Duplicates information contained in Free Gaza Movement, any additional information may be merged into that article. Cs32en Talk to me 00:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - (A10) As the nominator says, mostly duplication of another article. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- if the group becomes notable outside the general movement we can then have an article for them. Seaphoto^Talk 04:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other. I agree. (I started this stub before the other one existed.) It at least needs a cross-link. ::::Aa42john (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (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.

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 keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens PLM Software

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

This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: WP:SK. The topic is notable. In fact, it was the topic of an article today in Fortune: "Chrysler's engineering software shift: The automaker is embracing engineering software from Siemens where it once used Dassault. A case of open vs. closed?" As stated here, Siemens PLM is "one of the biggest suppliers in the PLM market", which was purchased in 2007 for $3.5 billion. Yes, the article needs cleanup and references, but it appears salvagable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin W Smith (talk • contribs) 20:42, June 23, 2010
- The current article needs more sources to prove notability. If sources like these were added then I would agree that we should keep the article. Currently it talks mostly about its products with a bit of history that is all unsourced or self-sourced. As of now I believe its unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tootitnbootit (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) again. It says, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.". Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand that, but when you type in the name in Google it only shows press releases. Which are not considered necessary sources by WP:COMPANY. The Forbes article you showed does not show up in the search. That article would be a correct source of notability.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also like to add that you found something that I didnt. Which is why this discussion board is in place, correct? I agree, if there is a source like Forbes that this article should stay.Tootitnbootit (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this article extremely useful and informative when searching for background info about this company just now. To me, it doesn't read like an advertisement at all, most of the content concerns the company's history, and it is similar to articles I've read about other companies. I have no links to or interest in this company or its competitors.Kiwi Jake (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable without question. Dewritech (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First let me say that I am employed by Siemens and used to work in the PLM Software business unit (I am now in the Industry Automation division responsible for PL and 3 other business units). If the main issue is references, I am sure we can find them, but I do need your advice: we have specifically avoided doind anything to any of our wikiepdia articles. We let them be whatever the community outside of Siemens PLM Software decides they should be. If we have the references, what is the right way to add them without creating the perception that we are tampering with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy on this is covered (officially) by WP:COI or (unofficially) by WP:EXPERT. In short, if you have a potential conflict-of-interest (COI) with content on wikipedia (e.g., an article about you, or a company you work for), you should generally specify these potential COIs on your talk page. And then, when you see changes that should be made to articles for which you may have a COI, you should recommend your change on the article's talk page. In this case, your talk page is User talk:Aakelley, and the article's talk page is Talk:Siemens PLM Software. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I knew about the use of the article's talk page for COIs, but had not read / heard about the specification of COIs on your personal talk page. I will add that now and add the references to the Siemens PLM Article talk page once I compile them. Thanks for the pointers.Aakelley (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakelley (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said it wrong; declaring your potential COI should probably be on your user page, but not necessarily your user talk page. WP:COI makes it fairly clear. In any case, I'm glad I could help. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - only argument for deletion seems to be WP:RUBBISH. There's enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this to meet WP:GNG. Claritas § 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Acquisition news can be found from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/588 and http://www.manufacturing-executive.com/news/read/Siemens__UGS_Is_the_Merger_Working_32562. Seakskyk (talk) 8:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please close this AFD. It's been open for several weeks now, and I think the consensus is clear. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nordmanni

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

Creator removed speedy tag. Copyvio issues appear to have been dealt with, but the article is pretty much entirely promotional and there is no indication as to how the organisation would satisfy even WP:GNG Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have blanked the article pending OTRS permission verification, as the article is still a copy of the source. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentioned, in three articles from a local paper in a list of groups appearing in a parade.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly any coverage [4]. LibStar (talk)

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.

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 no consensus. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but discounting the last comment in the AfD (no reasoning given), with 3 deletes and 3 Keeps there is clearly no consensus either way. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ResPublica

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

"Think Tank" that fails WP:ORG, no significant coverage, what little coverage there is (see the creators list on the Talk page) is mostly of the form "Phillip Bond, Director of" . Codf1977 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (I'm the article's creator - no wp:COI). Not just any old think tank, but "a leading think tank". The latter is a direct quote from the BBC presenter Stephen Sackur, & taken from (5 mins 20" into) his HARDtalk TV program interview with Phillip Blond of ResPublica.

Moreover, David Cameron took time out to attend & speak at ResPublica's launch, and there are 5 UK MPs on ResPublica's advisory board. I don't think the latter should be dismissed as run-of-the-mill inherited notability, as the 6 notable people share many aspects of the same essential professional field as the organsisation in the article.

Also, ResPublica has had some mentions by name in several UK national newspapers. Trafford09 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the "a leading think tank" quote was given to the BBC presenter Stephen Sackur by Phillip Blond or his staff, as a way of self promotion. The reason why I think that is, according to the BBC site this program went out at 11:30pm on Tuesday 20th October 2009, however over a month later Simon Hoggarts in The Guardian comments on going to the Respublica Launch - so I have to ask how can this organisation be "a leading think tank" if it has not yet launched ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A less-conspiratorial theory is that ResPublica was conceived & spoken about months before their Official Launch event. The latter surely required the funds & preparation necessary to book a large venue, & attract an audience of 300 people with busy diaries, and the attendance of Mr. Cameron. Please see the links here, dated 2 Aug 2009. I see no cause to question the professional integrity of either Stephen Sackur or the HARDtalk staff. Trafford09 (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was there seems to be a lack of significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Chzz ► 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline GNG, but clearly it exists, and I suspect it could be sourced. Chzz ► 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Existence doesn't imply notability, and notability is not inherited. Just because notable people sit on the board of advisors does not automatically make the organization notable. I don't see much coverage of what the think tank has actually accomplished in order to make the organization itself notable. All of the sources in this article about the members of the organization, not about anything that the organization has actually done. If that is all the coverage that can be found, then at best this article should be merged among the articles for its notable members. SnottyWong ^babble 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although notability is not inherited, surely this is not a normal inheritance. If David Beckham bought a hotel, that hotel would not become notable. But in this case, we're taliking about a UK political think tank, and on its advisory board sits Oliver Letwin, who's the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, Chairman of the Conservative Research Department and Chairman of the Conservative Party's Policy Review, and sits on Cabinet meetings. That's kinda related to the article's subject. --Trafford09 (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance is Inheritance, what is needed is the significant coverage of what ResPublica has done.Codf1977 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Glance through the dozens of summaries that appear when Google news search is used for "ResPublica" AND "think tank".[5] Seems notable to me. They quote from them at times, and talk about their agenda to break up the four big supermarkets. Dream Focus 03:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this article - more about what Philip Blond said than ResPublica - Only mentions ResPublica twice once to confirm that Philip Blond was talking at the ResPublica launch and secondly to report that a spokesperson for ResPublica expanded on what Philip Blond had said. Codf1977 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the others, including the one after that which is titled "Phillip Blond: Conservatives should break up big supermarkets" from the Telegraph.co.uk. Look at the ones with the word "supermarket" in them. Dream Focus 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that one, and that one is even less about ResPublica - as far as I can see this is a new "think tank" desperate for the oxygen of publicity and trying to do so by association (I am NOT saying that this WP article is a part of that). None of the refs shown address the subject of ResPublica and what it has done in anything approaching the significant way as mentioned in the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Codf1977 (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But surely this is catch 22. You say that ResPublica doesn't get coverage just because Newsnight, HARDtalk etc. always interview its founder/director. If they approach, interview & quote him, and whilst doing so, speak the words "think tank, ResPublica" & also display that on-screen, isn't that still a reference to ResPublica? You're saying that a director can't represent a body, or isn't doing so whenever he is given on-screen recognition for doing so? --Trafford09 (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, are you saying that, no matter how many thousands of people read about ResPublica in UK newspapers, or see it on TV, they're not entitled to look it up on our encyclopedia, to find out more information on the topic? (Which is precisely how I came to be involved in any of this, having no wp:COI.) --Trafford09 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying anything - the consensus guidelines layout what constitutes a notiable organisation and as of yet none of those advocating keeping the article have been able to provide prove of significant coverage only mentions. Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying a reliable source which deals non-trivially with the subject takes a bit more work than finding an interview which contains the words "think tank" and "ResPublica". Just because those two words appear in the same article doesn't mean that this source establishes notability. Again, what have they done? What have they accomplished? So far all I can tell is that they have talked about some supermarket chain. Remember, existence doesn't imply notability, so finding sources which simply prove that ResPublica exists are not helping the case to keep this article. SnottyWong ^gab 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ResPublica is a relatively new think tank but it and Philip Blond and his ideas have had coverage by multiple independent sources and are clearly notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind listing them ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick search for recent press coverage turns up the following, all of which are on the subject of ResPublica rather than just mentioning them in the context of a wider piece. I've also not included some smaller reportage about their launches and their pamphlets:

John Harris, "The man who wrote Cameron's mood music" (Saturday Interview), The Guardian, 8 August 2009, p. 28
Camilla Long, "The red under Cameron's bed", Sunday Times, 18 October 2009, p. 5
"Blond shakes up the Tories", Liverpool Echo, 23 October 2009, p. 8
Andy McSmith, "The rise and rise of Cameron's philosopher-king", The Independent, 25 November 2009, p. 14
Martin Ivens, "Cameron's tactical Blond moment", Sunday Times, 29 November 2009, p. 19
Dominic Lawson, "The man who wrote Dave's bible", Sunday Times, 28 March 28 2010, p. 39
James Delingpole, "Purple with rage about a Red Tory", Mail on Sunday, 11 April 2010, p. 13

And I gave up as the election campaign started. There are not many book references because the think tank is so relatively new. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree

John Harris, "The man who wrote Cameron's mood music" (Saturday Interview), The Guardian - is not about ResPublica but about Phillip Blond.
Camilla Long, "The red under Cameron's bed", Sunday Times, 18 October 2009, p. 5 - again is about Phillip Blond - with only one ref to ResPublica - "Happy but exhausted, because not only is he (Phillip Blond) running from pillar to post, he’s also setting up his own think tank, ResPublica, which launches next month.".
"Blond shakes up the Tories", Liverpool Echo, 23 October 2009, p. 8 - again is about Phillip Blond - with only one ref to ResPublica - "Now, aged 42, he is setting up his own think tank ResPublica.".
Andy McSmith, "The rise and rise of Cameron's philosopher-king", The Independent, 25 November 2009, p. 14 two mentions "Phillip Blond, the intellectual father of "Red Toryism" is launching a new think tank, ResPublica, to take Tory thinking further into the left's traditional home turf, by exploring what Conservatism can do for the poor and for the shattered communities in inner cities." and "Phillip Blond's time at Demos barely lasted four months before he fell out with them this summer. By then, his catchphrase "Red Toryism" and his reputed closeness to David Cameron, and particularly to Cameron's adviser, Steve Hilton, had attracted so much interest that he was able to raise £1.5m to fund ResPublica for three years. " - the rest is about Phillip Blond.
Martin Ivens, "Cameron's tactical Blond moment", Sunday Times, 29 November 2009, p. 19 Again two mentions "Amid fanfare, David Cameron took part in the unveiling on Thursday of ResPublica, a new think tank devoted to “Red Toryism”, an idea conceived by Phillip Blond, a garrulous former lecturer in theology." and "Cameron curiously spent only five minutes at the launch of ResPublica before leaving." the resy is unrelated to ResPublica
Dominic Lawson, "The man who wrote Dave's bible", Sunday Times, 28 March 28 2010, p. 39 - is not in the archive so I can only comment based on the title, which looks like it is to be about Phillip Blond again.
James Delingpole, "Purple with rage about a Red Tory", Mail on Sunday, 11 April 2010, p. 13 like wise is not in the archive, but no reason not to suspect like all the rest is about Phillip Blond.

so still no significant coverage of ResPublica, only mentions along side Phillip Blond. Codf1977 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your contention that a reference to ResPublica in the context of a profile of Philip Blond personally means that it does not count as source about ResPublica. It would not be right to allow the fact that media profiles concentrate on personalities to distract us from the fact that both Blond personally and ResPublica as an organisation are considered notable. In any case, dispute over sources ought not to take place in threaded discussions in an AfD, and contributors to an AfD discussion ought to be free to state their views without being interrogated on whether they are justified in holding them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interrogating you, you stated that multiple independent sources exited, and as my nomination was based on the fact I don't think they exist, if they do exist and are significant ("Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. - taken from WP:GNG) then it would be grounds for me to withdraw my nomination. Codf1977 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC links: As ResPublica is a UK think tank, I searched the BBC for news of it here, and the first news item it that this search brought up is:

Cameron backs Phillip Blond's 'Red Tory' think tank, including the view of Ross Hawkins - BBC Political correspondent - that "both Conservatives and their opponents will study the output of Phillip Blond's new think tank.".

Is this news item a better wp:RS, and should we seek more & similar? --Trafford09 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is a good source, we know it exists, but what has is done since then, the only coverage is centred around Philip Blond and Cameron attending it's launch - there does not appear to be any coverage of ResPublica significant or otherwise since the launch back in November. I still think it should be deleted or best a redirect to Phillip Blond. Codf1977 (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way - what output have they (both Conservatives and their opponents) had to study ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage of ResPublica - significant or otherwise - since November?

Today: Wednesday 14th April reminded readers of ResPublica, and

The Full Election story: 26 April found ResPublica noteworthy, even on a busy election night.

It seems that, in the UK, ResPublica have not disappeared off the political radar. --Trafford09 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again these are mentions in relation to Phillip Blond - absolutely NOT coverage of ResPublica !!!

Where is the coverage on the big policy announcements or recommendations in the last 8 months ? Have they even made any? What has this think tank actually achieved other than getting the then leader of the operation to the launch event for 5 mins. Codf1977 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, when the BBC in April wrote: "Phillip Blond, from the think tank Respublica, says ...", and "Phillip Blond, director of independent public policy think-tank ResPublica", they were adding non-relevant information by mentioning the think tank? Akin to saying he's in a local tiddlywinks team? No, I think the BBC is independent and experienced enough to present readers with relevant information. It's perfectly clear, to me, that when a director of a think tank is quoted about politics, then - unless he is careful to first stress that he's speaking in a personal capacity - he's speaking for and representing the think tank - hence the BBC's quite correct references to ResPublica. To conveniently dismisss anything Blond as non-ResPublica seems quite perverse. Trafford09 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes it is non-relevant for determining is ResPublica notable in it's own right; the fact you were unable to answer the other questions I raised should show you what I mean - perhaps if I refrase the question - "What is ResPublica notable for doing ?" Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect: existence is not notability... not much in this article that isn't a rehash of the think tank's promotional websites... WP:NOT#ADVERT. Arskwad (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems pretty clearcut to me Cavie78 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights

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

fails WP:ORG. despite its grand name only 6 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, grand name, and there is some coverage, however none of it is significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not informed in this area, but I think it would be important to see if anyone from WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of Australia wants to offer suggestions, since this seems like it could be an organization more notable to specialists in the area than the general public. I'm going to post a neutral request for advice on their talk page. Hash789 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Misarxist (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Development Foundation

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

I believe this non-profit organization fails the WP:ORG guidelines due to a lack of verifiable significant impact. Being a NGO does not, of itself, demonstrate notability. Apart from the one tangential mention in the Calcutta Telegraph article, I have been unable to find other sources using Google News. Fæ (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. And there is no significant independent coverage--Sodabottle (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Institute of Professional Financial Managers

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

No evidence of notability. Creator removed PROD tag, but did not give an explanation. Schuhpuppe (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Google search finds only self-referential sites and this article. The article claims that its members refer to themselves as CFM meaning Chartered Financial Manager, but Google indicates that the usual meaning of CFM is Certified Financial Manager - making this organization seem even more irrelevant. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2010 (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.

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. Courcelles (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Descendants Motorcycle Club

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

Fails WP:ORG. This club is not the subject of any reliable sources. There is a single news article that mentions the arrest of a member of a club of the same name in Australia [6], but the Wikipedia article is about a US college-affiliated club with no known connection to Australia, and even if it were about the same club, it is not significant coverage. Dbratland (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. tedder (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources given are neither reliable nor do they establish notability. Bonewah (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Brianhe (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, poor piece of Google-spam. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2010 (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.

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National case management network

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

Non-notable organization, no non-trivial third party sources, no independent hits on google or gnews. 2 says you, says two 02:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLUB#Non-commercial organizations: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

It is a national organization affiliated with the Case Management Society of America, and societies in the U. K. and Australia. Typically professional organizations like this receive very little coverage in news media.

TFD (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any independent, non-trivial sources though. Under WP:ORG, the requirement for non-trivial, secondary sources still stands for non-profits and NGO's, and it is only satisfied when sources are verified to exist and are referenced in the article. I definitely agree that the group's scope would qualify under WP:ORG, but notability can't be based on speculation regarding whether sources exist. 2 says you, says two 12:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best sources for information on professional organizations are textbooks on the profession. Since this organization is recent (2006) we would not expect to see them in Google books. Also professional organizations rarely make the news. Let's see if the author of the article can research this. I notice that there is also an article about a similar U. S. organization which is also poorly sourced. TFD (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (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.

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Front

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

fails WP:ORG; I can't find any coverage that isn't merely routine. Ironholds (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if deleted redirect to The Great War: American Front as a {{R from alternate name}} . 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable racist group easily passes WP:GNG. Searching "American Front" + "skinhead", I find lots of GNews hits from the late 80s to early 90s related to related to many different unrelated events, as well as 183 GBooks hits. Plenty of other independent references including the ADL [7] and the Southern Poverty Law Center [8]. Location (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2010 (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.

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. –MuZemike 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDL Cambridge

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

Contested prod. This group fails WP:CHAIN, it's local activities are non-notable in encyclopedical terms and do not warrant a separate article. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also possible merge if there is some merit in that. Pretty much as nom., local activities don't need a separate article. DRosin (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local branch of extremist fringe group. Quoting one of the referenced articles (I dont really think that student newspapers count as reliable sources) "A grand total of six flag-waving EDL members"; SIX? There are substantially bigger family outings every single day of the week. There is nothing of value to merge to English Defence League. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both student papers are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. The group is notable as it has been commented about by these third party sources, the number of persons on the protest is totally irrelevant in this context apart from being a matter to comment on in the article. WP:CHAIN does not apply, this is not a franchise but an example of an local extreme political group, additionally it is notable in it's own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by People4people (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The English Defense League itself might be notable (although I think it's a joke more than a real protest movement; their website says they "have a drink and then shout about the terrorists") but the Cambridge branch is very unlikely to be.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are just personal opinions, the notability guidelines only require the subject matter to be covered by a reliable third party source. Both the student papers meet the criteria of reliable sources under the guidelines.--People4people (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pit-yacker Peridon (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local branches of national groups aren't notable - if this were the case we'd have articles on Labour Party (Cambridge), Liberal Democrats (Cardiff), Amnesty International (Birmingham) etc etc. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear that the activities of the group are sufficient to merit their own article. Hash789 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it all, "[t]he Cambridge Division has been reported to have few members". —Osa osa 5 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Pit-yacker

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.

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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Selling Association Malaysia

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

Not notable. Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cant find anything that goes to notability - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Me neither, Gnew almost nothing, the press-links at dsam-homepage don't work, so nothing for WP:N. Dewritech (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Including the all-important "of" in searches finds a lot more potential sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a raft of coverage in major Malaysian news sources. On the pages mentioned by Phil Bridger, we have [9], and enough free news articles to support an article even if we exclude (which we shouldn't) the swathe of articles from one of Malaysia's biggest newspapers hidden behind a paywall.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even after including "of" in searches, no notability. --Tagtool (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2010 (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.

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. In all respect, the author also requested deletion in good faith, so WP:CSD#G7 tangentially applies also. I would not recommending opposing future recreation. –MuZemike 00:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Long Distance Swimming Association

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

Queried speedy delete. I received this message asking for it to be undeleted: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hi anthony. if the page really doesn't belong on wikipedia, that is ok with me, i have no affiliation with the ILDSA. the ILDSA is important to the open water swimming community and the marathon swimming community because it provides observers to ride along on the swimmer's escort boat to certify that swimmer has meet all the regulations during the crossing. The ILDSA is also important because it keeps records of the results. Swimming the irish channel is a monumental achievement in open water swimming. It has been swum by notable people, including Alison Streeter as mentioned in her Honoree page the website of International Swimming Hall of Fame. http://www.ishof.org/honorees/2006/Alison%20Streeter.htm The Irish Channel is currently known as the North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland) Candotoo (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Candotoo (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tenuous association with notable athlete(s) does not confer notability. Csrwizard (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- to be clearer, i do not propose an association between notable athletes and the ILDSA. Instead I meant to propose that the ILSDA is important in the open water swimming community because it serves in an officiating capacity for one of the the most difficult channel swims in the world, the North Channel (formerly Irish Channel) swim crossings of the North Channel (Irish Channel). But is the North Channel really considered a major challenge in the open water community??? If not, then the ILDSA may not merit a wiki page. But in fact the North Channel is a major challenge, comparable to - if not more difficult than -- swimming the English Channel. To establish this, i pointed out that the International Swimming Hall of Fame has included North Channel Crossings in their biographical sketch of their Honoree Alison Streeter. Candotoo (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Candotoo (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object While i object to the deletion of the Irish Long Distance Swimming Association ILDSA, would a page title something like Open Water Swimmming in Ireland be more suitable? Candotoo (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Candotoo (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The title is not the issue, the lack of sources showing how WP:GNG is met is. Nuttah (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The absence of sources makes establishing notability unlikely. Nuttah (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG Codf1977 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Strategies

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

No secondary sources discussing this organization, none found via Google. All I found were passing mentions. Apparently non-notable. Was prodded, prod removed by author without significant improvement. Huon (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Huon's statement. I read the article and it's clear to me that if they were asked to testify before both the US House and the Senate the organization is clearly notable.DSPolicy1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC). — DSPolicy1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are certainly reliable sources mentioning this organization. But if you look at the sources, they are actually about the people involved, who are notable in their own right. For example, in the cited congressional testimony by Philip Heymann, his credentials were given as a professor, not as a member of this organization. Testimony and interviews with Mathea Falco mention in passing that she is president of this group, and then go on to what she has to say.[10] An op-ed in the Washington Post by Falco and Heymann is about policy and does not mention the organization Drug Strategies.[11] Aside from a mention by Donna Shalala, it does not look as if the group itself is notable. The notability requirement is significant coverage ABOUT the organization - which I couldn't find. I could change my mind if shown more relevant sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually comment on this kind of thing but having read through the article and clicked on the sources this organization is clearly more notable than 90% of stuff on wikipedia. Living in the D.C. metro I have some good friends who work for Congressional committees and I can tell you they vet testimony very closely. Furthermore when you read about who is asking them to undertake their studies it reads like a list of the most important American philanthropic funds; maybe I'm taking this personally as a member of a non-profit, but just because an organization doesn't profit financially from their work doesn't mean that they don't serve an notable, important purposes.--TyraStnx (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC) — TyraStnx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I don't doubt that Drug Strategies does good work and knows important people - but by the relevant guidelines, that's not enough. Rather surprisingly, I couldn't find anybody writing about Drug Strategies itself. I also don't doubt there's less notable stuff on Wikipedia, but that's no excuse, either. Huon (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have said, there is coverage that mentions this institute while talking about some of its people, but I can't find any sources that are about the institute itself. Thus I think it fails WP:CORP. It's a close call for me, and if someone could find even one significant reliable source about this institute, I might change my mind. I admit it's a bit difficult Googling a title like that. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:11, 30 June 2010 (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.

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 redirect to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABCT GLBT Special Interest Group

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

Non notable sub group of a professional body, no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources so fails WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the parent org. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no Ghits, no coverage anywhere, non-notable. Minor4th (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, per WP:CLUB: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." (BTW somebody should also nominate for deletion/redirect/merge the article ABCT Couples Special Interest Group, for the same reason.) --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2010 (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.

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 merge to SIGCHI. per WP:CLUB NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BostonCHI

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

Non notable sub branch of a professional body. No evidence of the significant, independent coverage required to show how WP:GNG is met Nuttah (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to parent article SIGCHI, per WP:CLUB: " Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to SIGCHI. Little notability as an independent branch, but the body itself is notable and this information should be retained. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:38, 27 June 2010 (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.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Queer Organization}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeGaza}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMCA Camp Orkila}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siemens PLM Software}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordmanni}}