Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual Fund Directors Forum


 * 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. Various tags will be applied to encourage cleanup... &mdash; Scientizzle 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mutual Fund Directors Forum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable organisation, already speedily deleted, but recreated. Mayalld (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree -- non-notable, spammy, already speedily deleted. --Dawn bard (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible speedy as nn-club. I would go and speedy it myself but the author has been threatening me with DRVs on my talk page, so better to get it hashed out here. Per nom and Dawn. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, was this recreated again? I think I tagged this twice. Rudget . talk  15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Come on guys, let's get real here. This isn't a "club" or "spam". It's a body which advises the SEC, and has loads of sources quoted for its notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a well recognized (in the mutual fund industry) non-profit organization that publishes best practices for independent directors. The SEC caused the organization to be formed.  Mr. Bridger is correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.43.71 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Mutual Fund Directors Forum is not a private club.  It is a legitimate non-profit organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.43.71 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment. As the author of the entry, I submit that those above voting for deletion simply may not be familiar with the U.S. securities industry, the regulation of the U.S. mutual fund industry, or even the SEC. Given this unfamiliarity, it's understandable that they may not have the proper frame of reference to make a knowledgeable determination of the notability of the Mutual Fund Directors Forum and the need for a Wikipedia entry about it. It is understandable that many of the new content patrollers are exercising a healthy skepticism because they are accustomed to dealing with spammers and other folks simply trying to slip past them advertisements and other inappropriate material no one would ever have a true desire to look up. But this is a legitimate nonprofit organization formed at the behest of the SEC; and one that is treated as an expert resource by the mutual fund industry, the press, and the SEC itself.  The organization is notable on its face, and its notability is backed up in the article by citations to reliable and verifiable primary sources.  Some may judge the article's tone somewhat tendentious, but any such bias, however minor, may be moderated if the article is left available to more and different editors.DJDeedle (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep.  This clumsy conflict-of-interest article seems to have just enough sourcing to be notable, it should probably be kept and seriously cleaned up by a neutral party. Zedla (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with Phil Bridger. The Forum is not a club and is certainly not spam. It's a valuable resource for the mutual fund industry and the financial press. — CLS1977 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Forum is a well-known organization within the mutual fund and broader securities industries, and provides fund directors with valuable support in their key role of protecting fund shareholders and negotiating the prices shareholders pay for their funds. — smithdb4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. This is clearly a case of an article that needs work, but on a worthy topic.  There seem to be plenty of reliable sources on the topic, even if the current article may not be a good example of WP:NPOV, and isn't wikified.  Mango juice talk 19:11, 29 November 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.