Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National case management network


 * 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

National case management network

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable organization, no non-trivial third party sources, no independent hits on google or gnews. 2 says you, says two 02:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLUB: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
 * 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale
 * 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
 * It is a national organization affiliated with the Case Management Society of America, and societies in the U. K. and Australia. Typically professional organizations like this receive very little coverage in news media.
 * TFD (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any independent, non-trivial sources though. Under WP:ORG, the requirement for non-trivial, secondary sources still stands for non-profits and NGO's, and it is only satisfied when sources are verified to exist and are referenced in the article. I definitely agree that the group's scope would qualify under WP:ORG, but notability can't be based on speculation regarding whether sources exist. 2 says you, says two 12:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The best sources for information on professional organizations are textbooks on the profession. Since this organization is recent (2006) we would not expect to see them in Google books.  Also professional organizations rarely make the news.  Let's see if the author of the article can research this.  I notice that there is also an article about a similar U. S. organization which is also poorly sourced.  TFD (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.