Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective for Research and Training on Development-Action


 * 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 Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Collective for Research and Training on Development-Action

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does this organization pass Notability (organizations and companies)? Avi (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You tell us. Per Guide to deletion you should check for yourself before nominating an article for deletion.  So &hellip; what did you do to check for yourself whether multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources that document this organization in depth exist? Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete fails to assert notability  Thin boy  00  @854, i.e. 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral per User:Uncle G -- Thin  boy  00  @855, i.e. 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete : this was already tagged as a G12 (copyright violation) of http://www.crtda.org/en/book/export/html/1 and is specifically listed on the Suspected copyright violations page. Mh29255 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The owner of the text has given permission under the GFDL. There is no copyright violation and this cannot be speedied as a G12. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Good work? Maybe.  Good page?  No. Ψν Psinu 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a rationale for deletion, per our Deletion policy. Please come up with a proper rationale that has a basis in policy.  Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some edits to the document. the source website states that content can be used. Can you please reassess the article? Mcheblak (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort - but it seems to me that virtually every link is to another CTRDA subsite. There are no outside news references, which still begs WP:NOT.  Therefore, my D stands for now.  But I do like when people try to respond constructively, so kudos for that.  Ψν Psinu 23:17, 28 December 2007 (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.