Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Maldivian Engineers (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Not an overwhelming case for keep, but it squeaks by. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Association of Maldivian Engineers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This engineering association stub was a stale user space draft that user:Legacypac (but not in his/her user space) moved into article space with the claim that it is a notable professional association. This is not substantiated with any coverage in independent reliable sources. The article has no references. The external link in the article is simply a directory listing in the World Federation of Engineering Associations and is obviously provided by the Association of Maldivian Engineers themselves. The organisation is not actually a member of the World Federation. See this page and search for the Maldivian entry. Expanding the item shows details shows "WFEO Member: No". A search for sources turns up no coverage at all. According to the WFEO, the website for the organisation is http://www.a-me.org/ but that's a dead link for me. Either delete, or restore back to user space from where it was moved. Whpq (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep i was not aware of the previous AfD.  The Maldives are the smallest country in Asia by area and population, and English is their second language, so I think the standard for sources should be set accordingly. Professional associations don't get tons of coverage even in big English speaking countries but they are inherently notable, especially if all engineers must be a member or licensing is tied to them (not sure if that is true here).  I did confirm the association exists so felt it a good stub on the basis that the Association of Engineers in any country should be notable at least to people in that country. The stub is factual and not promotional. It may never grow beyond a dtub but that is ok.  I don't see it as harmful. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Move back to userspace, and delete it there, as a copy of deleted material, a SNOW delete reason at the lower threshold of MfD. Legacypac is presumably unaware of Articles for deletion/Association of Maldivian Engineers, and that this copy fails to overcome the reasons for deletion.  Ask Legacypac to keep at refining his reading for pages meeting WP:STUB.  "Not harmful" is not a reason to keep a mainspace article against a challenge to notability.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Legacypac below. That's two reliable sources, it is not a promotional article, and agree with his points.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A decent ref http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/sectors-maldives/business/construction_and_engineering/ that describes the association as " professional bodies are the Maldives Association of Construction Industries (MACI), which was founded by the nine major construction companies in 2001; and the Association of Maldivian Engineers is the corresponding body for the engineering profession.". Remember this is a country with maybe 400,000 people and not a lot of engineers but this is their professional association and therefore a topic you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've found a third good ref - they joined the World Council of Civil Engineers (which should be an article) where they are listed as a current member http://www.wcce.biz/index.php/membership/current-members I also found an airport manager that shows membership on his professional profile and a proposed association of environmental engineers and allied professionals that was discussing how they would interface with AME. Clearly this is the Association and the only issue is that online coverage is thin because it is a small poor remote country. We can safely assume there are off line sources too. Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  14:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Still "keep". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2016 (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.