Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Institute of CPAs


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Florida Institute of CPAs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources discuss this organization in depth. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." It says nothing of depth. This page has multiple, as well as verifiable, third-party sources on the topic. MrDaveCone (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — MrDaveCone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You have cited the introduction section of Notability. Note that there are other notability guidelines that go into more detail on what qualities specific subjects should have to be considered notable. In this case, this article describes an organization, and it therefore falls under the subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies, readable at Notability (organizations and companies). That guideline specifically mentions depth of coverage as an important quality for assessing notability. That being said, I haven't looked into this subject all that much yet, and it appears a couple editors below have found that such in-depth coverage exists . Mz7 (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Striking: misread a few comments. Mz7 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Agree article needs better references. Unsourced material and primary sources should be removed; nominator makes a valid point that no source discussed the article in-depth. A way to find better such sources is look here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk  15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The organization is notable and has multiple references. Perhaps additional and more in-depth articles can be included, but to me it looks like sufficient secondary sources to keep the article. Bahooka (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  14:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete just another professional association, no claim of notability, refs are accounting news and trivial personnel announcements, no in-depth covergae, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - The group and people associated with it have received coverage by a bunch of reliable sources it seems (even just from searching right now, I came across this), but I don't see the kind of in-depth material on the group itself that we really need to have a good article. As well, the page as it's written now has a ton of material in it without any citation at all. Still, that you have publication after publication referring to the organization makes me lean towards keeping it, even if a lot of it has to be scrapped. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The source you give is a WP:GNG, tright out of the textbook: "The subject says blah blah blah..." The article is three pages on some tax, and in one paragraph the CPA association's spokesman makes a very short statement about it. Kraxler (talk) 04:03, 29 August 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.