Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intertel (group) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. L Faraone  23:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Intertel (group)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has not been sourced up to the policy requirements of WP:ORG at any time since creation. The existence of the group is plain, but it appears never to be mentioned in more than an off-hand way in any reliable source. I have notified the creator of the article about this. I have called for sources on the article talk page, and have looked for them myself, while engaged in a massive research project to find reliable sources on closely related topics for edits of other Wikipedia articles. I mention this just to uphold policy. I will delighted to see the article stay in place if reliable sources can be found that fit WP:ORG. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to politely request WeijiBaikeBianji withdraw this nomination. I was looking for a biofeedback practitioner for my brother, and found several doctors, one who was Chairman of the Intertel Selection Committee. I looked for more information, and Wikipedia showed as a result. I was shocked to see this article nominated for deletion, since several doctors who work in psychology, psychiatry, engineering, etc. explicitly state their membership to this society. If it was only appear no "more than an off-hand way", it would not be logical they they declare membership with such an "obscure" group. Taric25 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I recently (July 25, 2013) submitted my WISC-R score to Intertel and my request was promptly followed up by their office. The membership process is excactly as described on their website and Intertel publishes a monthly magazine and has several regional meetings per. year in addition to their annual AGA meeting for all members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofVideoGames (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a very important and valid entry/article. Since such a group would only really appeal to 1% of the population, I don't think it's really surprising that it's difficult to find popular sources that mention it. However, I noticed there are a number of published books, news articles, and scholarly journals mentioned in the "Sources and References." It seems that since all of this is verifiable material and there isn't actually that much publicly available on the internet, that is precisely why you should keep this entry. This organization still clearly exists and is unique in its own right, and many high profile people and intellectuals know about it. Just my feedback.

-- Agreed. This seems to have enough references to be solid (and many more than certain other articles). I'm not sure why exactly it's being considered for deletion? Makes sense that mainstream media and other publications trying to sell the most editions/copies of their product might shy away from talking about it too much, since it's a rather uniquely-defined group. But it doesn't seem like we should base deletion on whether or not big name publications have written a lot about it...Isn't this an encyclopedia trying to objectively include knowledge about a wide range of topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.212.230 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * *Reply An organization that is open to the top 1 percent of the population in IQ would potentially include at least 3 million members in the United States alone. I have a qualifying IQ, and know many members of an organization with more stringent selection criteria, but have yet to encounter any reliable sources for editing Wikipedia that mention verifiable facts about Intertel. I know plenty of active, helpful organizations with rather large membership that have no article about them in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a directory of organizations. Review  Wikipedia guideline about articles about organizations to understand what editing criterion is at issue here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Relisting comment: Relisting because original nomination was not completed properly.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Wine Guy ~Talk  16:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Thank you for relisting: Although I used the usual tool for the AfD, I somehow missed a couple of the current standard procedural steps, and I appreciate you fixing that problem. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Wine Guy  ~Talk  16:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Wine Guy  ~Talk  17:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nomination. However if there's something I'm missing from a RS I'm willing to change.  However for right now just can't seem to find anything more then mentions, no discussions on the subject. Caffeyw (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 05:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - A lot of the sources are offline so I can't assess them, but from what I can see the group is mentioned but only in passing and with nothing to establish notability.-- K orr u ski Talk 11:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * * I've checked many of the sources Yes, I submitted the AfD nomination after checking many of the sources myself, and noting that a previous editor (as disclosed by the article history) had checked many other sources, and found that they had nothing particular to do with the organization. The WP:ORG policy is what is at issue here. Thus far, despite diligent search over several years, I have not found any reliable sources that provide information about the organization described in this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:13, 23 August 2013 (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.