Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Global Partnerships


 * 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   no consensus. No agreement on whether current sources establish notability. -Scottywong | confer _ 22:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Global Partnerships

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unremarkable charity (fails WP:GNG). I prod'ed this, but the prod was removed and a flurry of editing seems to be making it more, not less, promotional. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes, it's a WP:NOBLECAUSE . However, I too have had to edit mercilessly to try and make it an encyclopedia article, but to little success.  I have advised the WP:COI editor of the lack of notability.  There are charities with much larger budgets that also do not qualify for an article yet. There's nothing, however, anywhere that suggests or proves notability ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. This charity has a 22 year history; it is a successful and important society and charity at the university of Edinburgh. Attempts are being made to make this article more objective. To consider a fundraising total £282,822 within just 4 years as "unremarkable" is offensive and you are obviously quite removed from real life. Wikipedia is not about charities having bigger budgets in order to qualify for a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.160.253 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and is there a policy-based argument you would like to make? Perhaps a quick read of the AFD process may help you to formulate some way of explaining why it should be kept.  There's no doubt it exists; there's no doubt it's a good cause.  But is it notable?  Not by what's written here, nor by what I have found written about it. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One of "oldest international volunteer organisation in the university world" (as cited by the INDEPENDENT newspaper) is not a notable fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.160.253 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "thought to be" ... so says the quote. Not attributed to any actual source. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 22:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Take your issue up with the Independent Newspaper - otherwise as far as I am concerned the fact that EGP is "one of the oldest international volunteer organisations" and is validated by a 3rd party source, which according to the rules of wikipedia, is sufficient validation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.160.253 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in English: "is thought to be one of the oldest" is not a validation whatsoever that it is, indeed "one of the oldest". Universities do educate first, field trips second, right? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A "field trip" - clearly you do not really understand what EGP does, which is luckily why this article exists, to inform people like your self about the organisation. Thanks for helping to demonstrate why this article should remain :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.160.201 (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, "field" was a verb in that sentence. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep - the page has references from the Independent (2, one of which a full feature story), the Scotsman and the Scottish Parliament. More work does need to be done to tidy the references but I think that notability is definitely passed. London456 (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this page does need a little cleaning, the notability is there and the page is quite clear of weasel-words that usually dog this kind of 'noble cause' article. Work has been done to improve referencing but it is not by an experienced user, give an experienced editor 20 minutes on there and you could show clear notability with some very good quality references. Keep and tidy. Birmingham04 (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ORG, WP:GNG via refs currently present in article, combined with some of these: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevj (talk • contribs) 11:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the references are either not independent, or minor coverage (not much beyond a mention of their name in a list of organisations). The article in the Independent is useful, but not in itself enough - multiple instances of significant coverage is the requirement. A noble, but not notable, organisation.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:18, 30 May 2012 (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.