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.
Apparently I started this article ten years ago in an attempt to assist an editor who had created it in the wrong place. I perhaps shouldn't have bothered, because it fails
WP:ORG.
Pontificalibus12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. In addition to the sources found by
AllyD, I found a few passing mentions, but not enough to meet
WP:NORG. The article itself is badly written from a
WP:MOS point of view, and sourced only to the org's own website. If this were an org that came close to meeting
WP:NORG, it might be worth keeping and putting in the effort to fix the structural problems with the article, but it's not, so it's not. I'd have no objection to somebody writing a new article on this topic if they could find better sources (or even adopting this one in draft/user space to work on), but it's not worth keeping in its current state. --
RoySmith(talk)15:14, 17 January 2019 (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.
Apparently I started this article ten years ago in an attempt to assist an editor who had created it in the wrong place. I perhaps shouldn't have bothered, because it fails
WP:ORG.
Pontificalibus12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. In addition to the sources found by
AllyD, I found a few passing mentions, but not enough to meet
WP:NORG. The article itself is badly written from a
WP:MOS point of view, and sourced only to the org's own website. If this were an org that came close to meeting
WP:NORG, it might be worth keeping and putting in the effort to fix the structural problems with the article, but it's not, so it's not. I'd have no objection to somebody writing a new article on this topic if they could find better sources (or even adopting this one in draft/user space to work on), but it's not worth keeping in its current state. --
RoySmith(talk)15:14, 17 January 2019 (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.