Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSCOM


 * 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. While I agree that an article about a defunct organisation should not be deleted for that reason, the consensus is that the sources available are insufficiently reliable and/or numerous to show that this organisation was notable. However, should suitable reliable independent sources be found, then this article could be recreated - notability is not temporary; if an organisation can be shown to have been notable in the past, it meets the criteria on Wikipedia for inclusion --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OSCOM

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This defunct organization does not indicate that it ever been notable. The single existing reference is blog. You search for sources adding the string "open source content management". There are many google links that show they existed, that their website had a list of open source tools , and that they sponsored conferences (at least three). Several of the google book/scholar links duplicate each other, so the number of real links is much lower than a raw search would show. Many other links copy information from the Wikipedia article so they also do not appear relevant. Other sources are directory pages which WP:N and WP:ORG strictly dismiss. I do not see multiple and significant reliable sources about the organization while I do see many minor, trivial, and tangential mentions of it. I therefore suggest delete this article. Miami33139 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - shortlived, no trace in deeds. Ulad (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel very strongly that we should not be in the business of deleting articles about organisations just because they are defunct. However, I realise that there is a question of notability anyway and of extant reliable sources. The demise of the OSCOM website (and I looked on the Wayback machine) does not help. I have added a couple of references to conferences (and archived the references on WebCite just in case!). It seems to me the organisation certainly was wikinotable and that there would be ample reliable sources if OSCOM still existed. I think there are still sufficient references to keep this article alive and that in terms of notability OSCOM has not (yet?) faded into the mists of time. Thincat (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. Were this organization notable at one time, it would be notable for all time, and that's the issue: the references don't really establish that this organization ever left a significant mark on history to be remembered for all time.  The added references are a report of a conference the organization hosted in 2002, and a set of video links from a 2003 conference.  They don't really tell us much other than that this was a trade organization that hosted some conferences.  Not sure that amounts to long term historical notability.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are not reliable. I was unable to find any reference providing significant coverage. Alive or defunct, it's still not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2010 (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.