Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British-German Association

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. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British-German Association

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

A non notable organization with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All references provided are either trivial mentions or non independent. Searches only bring up coverage of people associated with the organization. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - point taken that references were trivial, unreliable or non-independent. However, I've managed to find some more appropriate references. They are as follows: a televised interview on Bloomberg with the BGA Chairman earlier this week; a Guardian article which quotes the BGA Chairman extensively; a recent article on the German government website solely about the BGA; an article on the Siemens corporate website, solely about the BGA; an article on the Chatham House website about a co-event they did with the BGA; a page on the Royal website about the BGA and the fact that HRH Duke of Kent is an active Patron; and this obituary in The Telegraph about one of the previous Chairmen of the BGA. I believe that the article now fulfills Wikipedia's notability criteria - even though it's not the most notable organisation around! Under the specific guidelines for 'non-commercial organisations', Wikipedia gives the criteria as: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale (this is true); and 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization (this is also now true). They also suggest considering longevity of the organisation (the BGA has been around since 1951) and the audience reach of the sources (the Bloomberg broadcast connects with millions of people watching worldwide). Also - worth noting the credibility of some of the speakers and members they've had: cabinet ministers, a former UK PM and a German Chancellor, and CEOs / Chairpeople of FTSE 100 companies. Alastair279 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think any organisation with a senior royal patron passes the notability bar. Royal patronage isn't given to every minor club. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the Royals are basically German, I'm not surprised. Le petit fromage (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable, long-standing group. Author of article probably lacked resources to search older news files, where this outfit turns up more often than it does nowadays.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2015 (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.