Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Society of Journalists and Authors


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. Ok, I assume the large number of mentions in the media make it notable, even though I'm unable to find in-depth coverage myself, precisely because there are so many in-passing references. Presumably the same notability standard for academic journals can be applied: lots of references to it => notable. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

American Society of Journalists and Authors

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Tagged for nobility since 2007. No secondary coverage, so perhaps it's time to break the limbo. Some concerns over WP:COI as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better, of course, we don't delete just because no one has updated the references since the article was created, there are 1,400 Google News archive hits under "American Society of Journalists and Authors". The organization has been around since 1948. We also have about two dozen internal links coming in to the article. The organization also gives out the Conscience-in-Media Award. There is no deadline for improvement, and we don't nominate for deletion as a way to force people to improve the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The award article is rather WP:COATRACK. No independent sources discuss the importance of the award in that article, but those that have received it are notable on other grounds, so that article cobbles together their biographies. That it's a GA only speaks for the meaninglessness of the GA status in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Though I'm usually inclined to delete poorly sourced articles about niche organizations, this one is the exception. Though traditional sourcing may be hard to come by, this organization appears to have a long history and lasting significance -- there is little question this organization is notable and respected; we just need to demonstrate it with better sourcing. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (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.