Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Locksmiths 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 no consensus.  So Why  08:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Master Locksmiths Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article written and maintained by COI editors. The article is primarily devoted to advertising the reasons why you should hire someone with thier certification  DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- spam & WP:ADVOCACY. This content belongs on the org's web site, not here. Industry associations are almost never notable; could we have a "speedy delete" for those? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just cleaned up the article somewhat, and it seems much less like blatant spam now (to me, at least). With these changes, I think it can now serve the useful purpose of providing basic information to readers about this organisation. However, I believe it still fails WP:GNG and retains (relatively faint) traces of having been written as promotional advertising, and the activity of the organisation itself seems to include a substantially promotional element. The organisation's website prominently features a referral program that directs consumers to its members and promotes their services. With about 1400 individual members and 350 member companies, the organisation is not especially large or prominent, but it may indeed be – as one minister put it – the "principal trade body representing locksmiths and promoting standards within the industry" in the UK. That does seem fairly important, as I would personally like to know that the person I hire to be responsible for the security of my home or company has some kind of certification. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep At its current state it does not seem to be overly promotional. It seems to pass WP:GNG by the minister's statement and other minor mentions. The main contributors have an obvious WP:COI, but that does not necessarily make the article delete worthy. --Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have further edited the article. Please see the current version. Those "other minor mentions" have been removed, because the article seemed to be mischaracterising the content of the cited sources. I have commented at length about that issue on the article's Talk page. Currently, the only third-party source cited in the article is that minister's quote. (This does not mean that I think the article should be deleted; I just said this since you seem to have based your assessment on some parts of the article that were misleading or incorrect.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - as above, looks better after clean up.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:ORG, no company or group has inherent notability, and I'm honestly not seeing much to lift this above the critical threshold. Recent editors have done a creditable job cleaning up the page, and it doesn't contain much promotional content anymore, but there still aren't enough independent secondary sources to prove that the Master Locksmiths Association is notable. It would be a good idea to mention them in articles on locksmithing, or even on Maria Eagle's page (not by itself, but maybe if her speech is important). An independent article by itself? I don't think so. RexSueciae (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep looks much better after cleanup, no more stench of WP:PROMOTION. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:ORGDEPTH. My own searching failed to find a single WP:RS which was more than a routine mention.  Nothing that even came close to the depth of coverage we require for organizations.  The sources that others have presented certainly prove that it meets WP:V, but that's not enough.  It also has to meet WP:N.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the current state this seems ok. If there is no government regulation of the profession in the UK an association formed in 1958 is the defacto regulating body.  I think it serves the reader now. Legacypac (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the prime trade body for its field within the UK. That's well sourced, and even recognised in the Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (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.