Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Academy of Construction (USA)


 * 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. No prejudice about being moved to user space if someone asks. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

National Academy of Construction (USA)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP. Of all the sources in the article, only two independent sources (here and here) even mention the organization, and one of these is an award announcement while the other a short event announcement. There appears to be little to no coverage in independent sources online, as almost all coverage appears to be in the form of press releases housed on various websites which mainly announce the election of officials to the academy. These are not independent source and the organization does not inherit notability from these elected officials. The organization lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Brycehughes (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I am working on additional sources I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I worked on a draft in sandbox. After pasting it into the article, I didn't realize it would quickly be tagged for deletion, rather than a process of recommendations for improvement. I appreciate any help/feedback. And answers to questions below:

Question 1: While working in sandbox, I used similar organization's articles as a guide, e.g., National Academy of Construction. Are its sources satisfactory? Question 2: Is this satisfactory secondary source coverage: http://www.enr.com/articles/38787-viewpoint-time-to-set-higher-safety-goals (Footnote 9)

Many thanks for any help/guidance so I can meet article requirements. User talk:MaeInJune —Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

- - - Help, please: Is this where the discussion for deletion happens? Thanks. Meanwhile, I'm working on sources. MaeInJune (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're in the right place for discussion. As an op-ed, that source you suggested is not particularly reliable (see WP:NEWSORG) and not sufficient for establishing notability as far as I know, although let's let the discussion play out here. Brycehughes (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps. I'll see what I can do. MaeInJune (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

---I have added secondary sources. After reading more on notability requirements/definition and reviewing other organization articles, I think the article and its secondary sources satisfy requirements. I guess I'll hear from someone? Thanks. MaeInJune (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f  eminist  03:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

---I am composing additional details relevant to this discussion and will upload in the next few hours. Thanks! MaeInJune (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

---First: The original nomination-for-deletion comments state ''“There appears to be little to no coverage in independent sources online, as almost all coverage appears to be in the form of press releases housed on various websites which mainly announce the election of officials to the academy. These are not independent source and the organization does not inherit notability from these elected officials. The organization lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources.”''

Second: Regarding the “Google Test” Wikipedia states ''“Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet....Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.””'' (see section 4.2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test)

Last: The article/topic could be considered “highly specialized.” In addition, online industry and trade publication articles are often only searchable with a payed membership. In any case, a Google Scholar search for the article/topic yielded the following links to studies, papers etc., among others:

An Assessment of Best Practices and the Efficacy of an Open Repository in the Construction Industry http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784413517.232

Advancing the competitiveness and efficiency of the US construction industry, first of five mentions appears on page 8. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CJhhAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=%22national+academy+of+construction%22&ots=tgY2Y3T4y1&sig=ITpFEHhmOC6pdpS-gOnEkNP15i0#v=onepage&q=%22national%20academy%20of%20construction%22&f=false

Servant Leadership in Construction http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2008/paper/CPRT253002008.pdf

QUANTIFICATION OF TRANSACTIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION COSTS FOR THE U.S. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY http://www.library.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/gebkenr19272/gebkenr19272.pdf

Towards a Sustainable and Healthy Work Environment –Lessons Learned from the Unprevented Exposure of Miners to Coal Dust http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705815021025

Wisdom Based Leadership Competencies http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.7173&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Thanks. MaeInJune (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

--This discussion has been submitted to the DRN. Thanks. MaeInJune (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This morning I was reading that Judge James Robarts, the judge that halted the Trump Immigration Order, was a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers. There is a page in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Trial_Lawyers

It was useful to visit that reference. It's an honorary organization. It is to the community of Trial Lawyers what the National Academy of Construction is to the construction industry. It’s only references are to it’s own web site. Clearly Wikipedia recognizes its importance and leaves it on line despite the poor references.

This page has far more references and serves a much larger community—(the construction industry is the second largest industry in the US and the largest in the world). The National Academy of Construction members include the generals and admirals that have led military construction, the directors of the largest US government construction agencies, the CEOs of our country’s largest design and construction companies and the editors of the industry’s largest construction industry publication. They will be as at least as noteworthy as the Trial Lawyers. This page should not be deleted. It will be as useful as a reference in future publications as the American College of Trial Lawyers. Charles B. Thomsen FAIA FCMAA Charlesbthomsen (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * American College of Trial Lawyers is not a good model,, and is liable to be nominated for deletion itself if references are not added. On this type of argument in general, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or move to draft space. The article has only one reference, "Richard Tucker - NAC Kennedy Award", that provides anything approaching evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Secondary sources lack "significant coverage."MaeInJune (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note based on the discussion here, I believe would like the article moved to draft space. Brycehughes (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete is fine with me., I appreciate your noticing that from Teahouse discussion. You all have been great. I've learned a lot. Thanks!MaeInJune (talk) 00:55, 7 February 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.