Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Management Plan


 * 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. North America1000 00:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Management Plan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot tell I am sure this should be deleted. Of course, right now it is a badly-written promotional piece and a look at the creator's contributions does not give a good impression, but those are not valid reasons for deletion.

A search for Commonwealth of Virginia "Emergency Management Plan" yields few results, most of which are educational institutions, and possibly false positives like this and that. The question is whether the "academic" sources are considered independent (they are from the uni's management, not from researchers), and whether there are enough of them for GNG. I tend to think not. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tigraan is wrong. The article is not poorly written, the sources are legit, and the pieces has nothing to do with promoting a business.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtDCollins2017 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources may be reliable (i.e. "legit") but the problem is that the notability of the subject is not established - Wikipedia simply does not cover everything that is true or verifiable. Only independent sources (without a close connection to the subject) can establish notability.
 * As for the WP:PROMOTION issues, they are not necessarily connected with monetary gain. The CoV employs a very comprehensive set of procedures (...) is promotional, for instance. And no, the article is not written in decent encyclopedic style, see e.g. Review of the documents leads me to conclude that (...) (and replacing "me" by "one" would hardly be better). Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delet or stub I too cannot find WP:RS to support notability in the Wikipedia sense for this specific topic. But the article itself is mostly just a completely unsupported analysis and opinion essay about the topic, which fails to meet GNG even if the organization or other underlying subject itself did. DMacks (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: final relist &mdash; Music1201  talk  01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  01:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research essay, unconvincing in terms of GNG.  Sandstein   07:43, 29 July 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.