Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Global Partnerships

Edinburgh Global Partnerships

Edinburgh Global Partnerships (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)

Unremarkable charity (fails WP:GNG). I prod'ed this, but the prod was removed and a flurry of editing seems to be making it more, not less, promotional. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Yes, it's a WP:NOBLECAUSE . However, I too have had to edit mercilessly to try and make it an encyclopedia article, but to little success. I have advised the WP:COI editor of the lack of notability. There are charities with much larger budgets that also do not qualify for an article yet. There's nothing, however, anywhere that suggests or proves notability (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dont not delete. This charity has a 22 year history; it is a successful and important society and charity at the university of Edinburgh. Attempts are being made to make this article more objective. To consider a fundraising total £282,822 within just 4 years as "unremarkable" is offensive and you are obviously quite removed from real life. Wikipedia is not about charities having bigger budgets in order to qualify for a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.160.253 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  ...and is there a policy-based argument you would like to make? Perhaps a quick read of the AFD process may help you to formulate some way of explaining why it should be kept. There's no doubt it exists; there's no doubt it's a good cause. But is it notable? Not by what's written here, nor by what I have found written about it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• One of "oldest international volunteer organisation in the university world" (as cited by the INDEPENDENT newspaper) is not a notable fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.160.253 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  "thought to be" ... so says the quote. Not attributed to any actual source. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Take your issue up with the Independent Newspaper - otherwise as far as I am concerned the fact that EGP is "one of the oldest international volunteer organisations" and is validated by a 3rd party source, which according to the rules of wikipedia, is sufficient validation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.160.253 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)