Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimist International


 * 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 keep. Tone 19:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Optimist International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization that fails WP:CORP. Article is purely promotional with only primary citations (tagged for such since September 2008) from the company website, and the majority of content has come from associated editors with no attempt to establish an encyclopedic tone. One would think there would be more legitimate third-party coverage for a sizable organization such as this, yet nothing was found save for a single LA Times article from 1987. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  02:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * leaning keep Sourcing this does seem to be the issue, not notability. The Optimists get lots of hits, especially if one searches for the more common name of "optimists club", but it is hard to get past all the hits on individual clubs. Apparently if you haven't had a big scandal you can go for a century while getting minimal coverage, but it appears that the organization itself is really the only source of any detailed info on its history. I did manage to find this story on their public speaking contest, and there's surely more out there; at the moment I cannot devote more time to it. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC) *Keep. The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether it ranks in Google, nor whether it's a good article. It's old and big enough to have sources in printed media. Rathfelder (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. AfD is not for clean-up. Well-known enough and sources can be found online and in books. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2020 (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.