Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Chaplains 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 delete. — TKD::Talk 10:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

International Chaplains Association

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Entirely non-notable company: entry is in effect spam. Was previously prodded by user GRBerry and deprodded by user Necrothesp Springnuts 11:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, not a particularly good nomination, since it's blatantly not a company and blatantly not spam. If this article is spam then so is this one (which is a commercial organisation) and this one (which is another professional association). However, I'm neutral on whether it should be deleted or not, since it does seem to be pretty small and non-notable. If it was an association which all chaplains joined then it would be a definite keep, but its membership list suggests only a handful bother. I deprodded it, incidentally, not because I thought it was particularly notable, but because the cited reasons for the prod were inaccurate ("self promotion, no sources, not notable" - the article was not self-promotion and there was a source) and I generally dislike prods of NPOV articles on genuine non-commercial organisations. These should be taken to AfD, not prodded. -- Necrothesp 11:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I can't honestly find anything that asserts notability in this article, it would be nice to know what's spam about it?  1 redrun  Talk 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - Not per the nomination though. I'd use . There are no assertions to notability which is just as well as there doesn't seem to be any notability whatsoever. As the previous two editors commented there is no spam and it isn't a company... but that doesn't detract fromt he fact that it should be speedily deleted. --WebHamster 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just endorsed the prod while on prod patrol. My rationale was "Unable to find independent reliable sources to use for the article.".  The original prod was by Vidkun, whose rationale was "self promotion, no sources, not notable".  I don't see any independent reliable sources in the article yet, and still believe in the WP:INDY logic I used at the time.  GRBerry 14:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - as per Webhamster and my original prod rationale.--Vidkun 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable. profg 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, one news hit and two scholar hits is not a good sign. John Vandenberg 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:12, 10 September 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.