Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMG International


 * 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. --Core des at 04:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

AMG International
PROD tag removed, so I've brought it here. The article reads like spam, doesn't assert notability, is poorly written and needs more reliable sources. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) AMG's own website says that the organisation runs a 220-bed hospital and some smaller "medical outreach" programs; its IRS return shows that it has a £6million annual income from public donations. AMG's history page claims that the organisation's founder was very notable in Greece in the early 1960s. To my mind, those elements might meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG and WP:CORP if they were verifiable, but no other sources seem to be available. So I reckon it has to go. If anyone wants to start a decently-written and properly-sourced NPOV article about AMG, I wouldn't rule it out as one to keep, but this article is a definite no-no.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Keep, Verify & Stubify per above AMG would appear to be a notable organisation per both WP:ORG & WP:CORP however, this needs to be ascertained. Librarianofages 02:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like a vanity advertisement to me. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Removed prod but didn't do anything about lousy article. WVhybrid 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I was initially unsure about this one. The article reads like a pure vanity piece, and evangeical outfits are not my thing, but the real question here is surely notability and (secondarily) verifiability.
 * Delete Reads as an advertisement, (WP:SPAM) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above --Mhking 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ditto. Dave 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - oof, delete, as per nom. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  At the moment, it violates WP:SPAM, reading like a complete advertisement, but, like BrownHairedGirl, I agree that it is notable enough to merit its own article, if written in an encyclopedic tone. Also, more, direct sources are needed (WP:RS) - we can't just have a link to the organisation's website (hardly a neutral source....)  M  a  rtinp23  21:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Protect from Recreation Jason has pretty much admitted that it's impossible to find another source to verify they're as "international" as they say they are. I don't know why he won't come to vote here like a grown man.--Rmky87 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Information not verfiable. CloudNine 12:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.