Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Home


 * 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   no consensus. NW ( Talk ) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

American Home

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a non-notable organisation. I can find no sources which give this organisation notability within an encyclopaedic setting. There also appears to be a major conflict of interest with the major contributors to this article. Russavia Dialogue 13:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per WP:N..South Bay (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: While the article needs to be fixed up, it seems to be notable enough, fulfilling Notability_(organizations_and_companies), it is international in scale and Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. There are quite a few hits in Google, while some apparent controversy over it was reported in Google news: . There are even some academic articles about it in Google scholar: . --Martintg (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being run by an American is not international in scale as the organisation is limited to the city of Vladimir in Russia. The only news source is this which is more to do with the sister city relationship between Vladimir and Bloomington. The only scholar source is written by the organisation itself, and the rest of the scholar results are for the term "American home". If one is going to claim something is notable, they need to provide evidence of the notability. As such, I would ask that you be able to provide at least 5 sources which discuss this organisation in great detail, which aren't promotional in nature and which aren't connected with the organisation itself. --Russavia Dialogue 20:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this is not an article for a non-commercial organisation, but rather for a commercial business which would have to fulfill WP:CORP. We need to put this into perspective. This organisation is a small business which has English classes in the city of Vladimir; and these are a dime a dozen in Russia, and in the world at large. We could probably have a million articles just on such businesses, none of which are actually that notable in terms of an encyclopaedia; a directory or yellow pages, sure, but not an encyclopaedia. --Russavia Dialogue 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ronald Pope is a professor of political science at Illinois State University, and his American Home English language program (along with a number of other programs like student exchange and police training programs) is a not-for-profit program, see the relevant section here. --Martintg (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: The cited references are all regional, not suitable for WP:N.--RDBury (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Well referenced article, making the article notable. Ikip (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is referenced but notability guidelines are not satisfied. The News-Gazette is Champaign-Urbana area, the pantograph is Bloomington area and Transitions Abroad has a narrow audience (English speakers newly moved/working in foreign countries). To quote WP:ORG: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."--RDBury (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for all the arguments given above by Russavia. This sounds like every other organization out there. Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, these sorts of ESL outposts are very very common. Article makes no claim of notability. Sources found by the ARS are unfortunately local and read like they were all written/planted by Ron Pope. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's also an Associated Press story here, so there are at least two sources writing about it, not just the Pantagraph. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The AP story seems to be about a general phenomenon an not about the organization in particular. It might be used as an example but the focus of the story is Americans living abroad in general. To me, it still doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. Maybe there's fodder here for a more general article, can't think of what you would call it though.--RDBury (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's enough about the organisation to be a reasonable source. But I'm not persuaded that a local news story and an AP story amount to enough coverage, so I'm not arguing to keep it, just pointing out that more searching did pick up an extra hit. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is well-written and exists already. Why delete it?  Keep.  --AStanhope (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being well written does not mean the subject is notable. Please read WP:HARMLESS.--RDBury (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: References make the article notable.  - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Not refeenced enough and not notable enough. Had to remove a reference that was from a site that charged to read the story so there's even less references now.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The above reference has been returned, and another added (The San Fransisco Chronicle). There's just enough to warrant keeping. - Bilby (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh  00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Seems like a reasonable article on a somewhat notable subject. I don't see how deleting it would improve the encyclopedia. Is there something disputed in it? Sadly, Russavia can't respond. Some day we'll have a dispute resolution outlet that works so we can resolve disagreements instead of banning good faith editors with strong points of view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2009 (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.