Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pispalan kumppanuus ry: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:50, 16 December 2009

Pispalan kumppanuus ry

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

Non-notable local organisation, failing WP:ORG which states among other things that "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." andy (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, no evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so there are 2 things here:

1. notability 2. localness of scope

1. looking at other wikipedia articles as to what is considered suitably notable this seems to meet those criteria. 2. as explained in the article discussion there is work with associations outside of the local area (pispala) which is why the article was split from the Pispala article. e.g. World of Tango Festival, project at European level, project in Austria

the wikipedia guideline here is not easy to follow, as an organization may not have a local area geographically, for example working internationally or being a platform.Pispalapartnership (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Pispalapartnership[reply]

Response: the criteria for notability are very straightforward and this organisation doesn't seem to meet them. The principle criterion, as explained at WP:ORG and elsewhere, is that the subject of the article must have been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". I see no evidence of this. The criterion given in the nomination explains how notability might be achieved in the case of smaller local organisations but simply having links to one or two other organisations elsewhere is insufficient. Where's the coverage by reliable independent sources? The article itself states that it's incredibly easy to set up an organisation in Finland - by implication there must be many similar organisations to this one, none of them notable. andy (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 09:33, 16 December 2009 edit Pispalapartnership (talk \| contribs) 77 edits →Pispalan kumppanuus ry: reasons given for notability ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:50, 16 December 2009 edit undo Andyjsmith (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 37,702 edits →Pispalan kumppanuus ry: response Next edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:

	the wikipedia guideline here is not easy to follow, as an organization may not have a local area geographically, for example working internationally or being a platform.[[User:Pispalapartnership\|Pispalapartnership]] ([[User talk:Pispalapartnership\|talk]]) 09:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Pispalapartnership		the wikipedia guideline here is not easy to follow, as an organization may not have a local area geographically, for example working internationally or being a platform.[[User:Pispalapartnership\|Pispalapartnership]] ([[User talk:Pispalapartnership\|talk]]) 09:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Pispalapartnership

			*'''Response''': the criteria for notability are very straightforward and this organisation doesn't seem to meet them. The principle criterion, as explained at [[WP:ORG]] and elsewhere, is that the subject of the article must have been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". I see no evidence of this. The criterion given in the nomination explains how notability might be achieved in the case of smaller local organisations but simply having links to one or two other organisations elsewhere is insufficient. Where's the coverage by reliable independent sources? The article itself states that it's incredibly easy to set up an organisation in Finland - by implication there must be many similar organisations to this one, none of them notable. [[User:Andyjsmith\|andy]] ([[User talk:Andyjsmith\|talk]]) 09:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)