Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Services Association


 * 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. North America1000 01:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Business Services Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. I clicked on some of the references at the bottom of the article, which led to dead pages. Further research revealed that almost all references were not independent. This organisation has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organisation. Wikigenius729 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be prominent government lobby/company association. UK gov document here states: "BSA are a small but important trade association including large contract catering service providers operating in schools, hospitals, prisons, military bases and workplaces in every region of the UK." There's about as much coverage as you can expect from a very bureaucratic type group that apparently has no scandals; frequent mentions of BSA as source of information and their president being quoted, , , ,  —Мандичка YO 😜 14:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Whatever the object of the article's name is, the article itself seems to exist as a way to spawn articles on members/presidents and to be a brag sheet. Furthermore, since everything in the article now is a reiteration of the group's own material, it reads exactly like the low-information, high-baffle nonsense favored by business writing. In addition, the name is non-unique, and so the article is poorly lodged. If the vote were on the text, then I would vote to delete, because this is an article that no one could look up without already knowing more than the article explains. It can only be kept if there is a rewrite by someone who knows what an encyclopedia article looks like (when founded? what purpose? achievements? focus? no lists of members or people to write biographies of). Hithladaeus (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The organisation is clearly notable due to sources above, passes WP:GNG. Needs a rewrite though, possibly stubify it? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2015 (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.