Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian Center for Not-For-Profit Law


 * 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. Keeper   76  18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian Center for Not-For-Profit Law
WP:SNOWBALL?
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not assert notability and lacks factual third party sources. βcommand 12:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.   -- Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. does not meet WP:ORG . Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - much improved. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep -association with USAID and international not for profit organisation clearly asserts notability. Seems to have played an important role in Bulgrian law and decentralisation of power away from the state in intiating social and legislative reforms. Just needs to be expanded and improved... The Bald One       White cat 12:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly meets WP:ORG. "The program has been of notable importance in drawing together multi-party support of a modern legal framework. A new law was drafted in Bulgaria which permitted not-for-profit organizations to engage in economic and legal activity, curbing the state control over the activities of not-for-profit organizations." This has plenty of WP:RS to prove its WP:N. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, the article has changed completely since this deletion page was created. It is now clearly an appropriate wikipedia article. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, per WAS.  the_ed 17  15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what it was when it was nominated for deletion=>. This is the article now=>. Need I say more?  the_ed 17  15:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - no comment on the original version, but it is now perfectly acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The worrying thing is this article was intially speedy deleted before I had a chance to even look at. I had to request that it was restored. Editors who believe such things are non notable really should do a quick research check. It takes a minute maximum to find why it is notable. All it needed was expanding just ask Baldy nicely...  The Bald One       White cat 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - LOL!!! It's funny to see such an article proposed up for deletion! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and Fix WP:SELFPUB problems. If not possible, Delete renominate for deletion later While self-published sources are acceptable in articles about themselves or their authors, an article should not be based largely upon such sources. 80% of the material is referenced to the publications of the Center itself, and the other substantive source is USAID, which is a material supporter of the Center and therefore is not disinterested.  If the Center is truly notable, then its activities should be noted by third parties independent of the Center and its backers.  If it has not, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject.  Robert A.West (Talk) 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what are we going to start deleting other NGO articles like Friends of the Earth because they are based on their own proclamations or sources? If we want to know what an organization has done there is nothing better than reading information from an official annual report. It could use some third party sources I agree for neutrality purposes for a balanced article but even if there is a lack of these based on english search results on google that still doesn't make it deletable. There would more than likely be sources available in Bulgarian on a clearly notable group in legal and social policy in Bulgaria  The Bald One       White cat 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If articles cannot be properly sourced, then they should be deleted. If they can be properly sourced, they should be sourced properly.  Non-English language sources are acceptable if English-language sources are lacking.  As it stands, this article is a policy violation and could, after a reasonable interval, be re-proposed for deletion on the basis that it is incapable of being properly sourced. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The standard is effectively "can we verify it?" As we have admins and trusted users who are fluent in Bulgarian and related languages (i.e. enough that they could understand 50% or more and get the gist and assess reliability of sources) then there really is no problem. Orderinchaos 15:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as soon as the reliable non-English sources are cited in the article any reader who understands the languages will be able to verify that the article conforms to the information in those articles. At that point, the article will be in compliance.  BTW, I think it worth remembering that Wikipedia does not have a concept of "trusted user" -- that is more in the nature of Citizendium.  Here, admins have no special status or authority as regards content.  That is why it is not enough to assert that sources exist -- one must list them. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Truly notable? We have articles on tiny asteroids that are only noted by scientists. This is not the encyclopedia of only truly notable things. The point about notability is to be sure it actually exists (not a garage band you invented yesterday), people care enough about it to read about it (not the tree in your backyard), and we have reliable sources for it (how do we know you are not just making this up). This exists. People care. We have reliable sources. USAID is itself a reliable organization. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, WP:SELFPUB is not a deletion rationale. If there are problems with the sources, then the information in the article sourced only to those problematic references should be tagged as such, or simply removed. Second, Betacommand first tagged this for speedy, which was a completely inappropriate action. Once the article was restored (and properly so), Betacommand decided it would be better to AfD it. Even this is questionable, as it was a pretty clear candidate for cleanup and research, not for deletion. The article is now a completely viable article, and thus I recommend that this article be speedily kept, and that Betacommand work to improve problematic articles before tagging them for speedy deletion in the future, except in obvious cases. S.  D. D.J.Jameson 17:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a perfectly valid deletion rationale: policy prohibits basing articles primarily on self-published sources, and states explicitly, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article should be fixed.  Many articles should be fixed.  If you, or any other editor believe that the article can be fixed, then my recommendation as stated above is not to delete -- fixing an article improves Wikipedia more than deleting it.  On the other hand, if no editor believes that it can be fixed, or if time proves that it is unlikely ever to be fixed, then it can and should be brought up for deletion again, quite validly.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy snowball keep Clearly notable. Sour grapes on part of nom due to speedy failing. Jtrainor (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, this is a running theme on the part of the nominator. When one justification or method for deletion fails, try something else.  It's like watching a monkey throw shit at the wall until something sticks. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point you are making can be made without specific analogies like that. WP:FORUM might be what you are looking for, but it is perfectly OK to take things to AfD if a speedy is declined. Trust the AfD system to work, and wait for the nominator to learn something if the nominations keep failing. Just give it time before calling anyone out as a bad-faith or incompetent nominator - such accusations don't help and create more drama than the small amount of time wasted on the discussions. However, if the nominations are in great volume and might be scaring away new editors (not the case for this nom), that is another matter. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY Keep Notable enough for keeping the article.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as notable, fix the content. The article probably needs assistance from copyeditors who are proficient in English as a first language but who understand the topic. Orderinchaos 14:58, 25 August 2008 (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.