Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pispalan kumppanuus ry


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pispalan kumppanuus ry

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Non-notable local organisation, failing WP:ORG which states among other things that "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." andy (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Currently, no evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

so there are 2 things here:

1. notability 2. localness of scope

1. looking at other wikipedia articles as to what is considered suitably notable this seems to meet those criteria. 2. as explained in the article discussion there is work with associations outside of the local area (pispala) which is why the article was split from the Pispala article. e.g. World of Tango Festival, project at European level, project in Austria

the wikipedia guideline here is not easy to follow, as an organization may not have a local area geographically, for example working internationally or being a platform.Pispalapartnership (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Pispalapartnership

Q: Has the organisation been discussed at any length in newspapers or magazines? (Not just passing references). --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: the criteria for notability are very straightforward and this organisation doesn't seem to meet them. The principle criterion, as explained at WP:ORG and elsewhere, is that the subject of the article must have been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". I see no evidence of this. The criterion given in the nomination explains how notability might be achieved in the case of smaller local organisations but simply having links to one or two other organisations elsewhere is insufficient. Where's the coverage by reliable independent sources? The article itself states that it's incredibly easy to set up an organisation in Finland - by implication there must be many similar organisations to this one, none of them notable. andy (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NB I suspect this organisation may be notable, although I couldn't find an article about it on fi:. So I've left a note at the fi: Village Pump asking for help. --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Pispalan kumppanuus is notable, but Pispala's private library by Pispala kirjastoyhdistys is. It is noted in mainstream media and has some awards However, Pispala kumppanuus webpage says that they are running Kansalaistalo, 'citizenship house', which is tight partner with Pispala's private library. House is also local culture hub and it publishes it own magazine Pispalainen so maybe whole thing is notable enough. --Zache  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.224.44 (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A333 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - small local project, not significant (and greetings from Tampere :) ) --Aulis Eskola (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (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.