Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanian Secular-Humanist Association


 * 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. I don't think anyone is seriously insisting on deletion at this point. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Romanian Secular-Humanist Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meep Wikipedia's WP:N criteria. Also may possibly be promotional in nature. Ormr2014 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping it
(Sorry if this is disorganized, I don't know how this page should be structured, forgive my lack of Wikipedia experience.)

This article was marked for deletion on May 11 on grounds of lack of references to attest notability. I removed the notice on the 12th because a stub simply doesn't always have enough content for references to be included. As for notability is concerned, just because mainstream media ignores Eastern Europe in most of the English speaking world, it doesn't mean it's internationally irrelevant. The English Wikipedia is directed towards the international community in general, and not only to the community of native speakers. I believe I speak for many editors when I say I do not have time to create a full article at once, and I defend the approach of creating stubs and working on it gradually. After removing the notice I added a justification to the talk page explaining that I intended to add more information and references ASAP.

On the same day the page was proposed for deletion again and the justification was included in this page. I worked a bit more on the article and included references to international reports and academic journals mentioning the organization. The article is still a stub and I know that much improvement is needed, but I believe that for now there is enough referenced information for the notice to be removed. As for it being "promotional in nature", I think this is an accusation that applies equally well to any article on a member organization of IHEU. I believe the references included in the article provide credibility to my defense. I fail to see how the article on the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association is more relevant than this one. If someone is of the opinion that it is clearly more relevant, please explain me why it is so.

That being said, I once again bring attention to the fact that I am fully aware that the article needs improvement, but I believe this is normal for a young article. Wikipedia is collaborative and grows gradually, the first version can't be perfect. You are all welcome and encouraged to add any "this article needs improvement" notice that you see fit, I just don't think deleting it is a fair or necessary measure.Ariel Pontes (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You do make some valid points, but if the article is not complete and you have concerns about it being deleted before you have had the chance to finish it, you should move the article to the Drafts Namespace. Ormr2014 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

*This AFD is Closed - As the article has not been finished and the author expressed a desire to continue working on it without it being deleted, I have moved the article to the Draft Namespace. Ormr2014 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice struck. Article was moved back to main space. Discussion continues. Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed from Draft namespace for being a valid stub
Hi Ormr2014, thanks for closing the AfD! However, I don't think I expressed myself well enough and there might have been a misunderstanding. I did not say that I see the article as a draft that I will work on until I "finish" it. What does "finishing" an article on Wikipedia mean anyway? All articles on Wikipedia are incremental and subject to change. The concept of a "finished" article is meaningless. What is meaningful is the concept of a "minimum viable stub", and I have provided the arguments to defend that this is one and I still maintain my position. After all, if this is not a valid stub, what is? Wikipedia has the concept of a stub for a reason, and the fact that it provides stub templates for editors to include in their articles implies that the existence of stubs is legitimate.

That being said, please don't take it as a personal challenge, but I removed the article from the draft namespace. I don't want to seem stubborn but I also don't think I should be passive and act contrary to my beliefs just to avoid any possible conflicts. I have added some more information and I hope you will consider that the article is more decent now. In any case, as further evidence that stubs as short as this one are legitimate, you can check these articles:


 * AASRA
 * Advocacy Forum
 * Afghan Relief
 * Africa '70 (NGO)

For more see: Category:Non-governmental organization stubs. Thanks for understanding. Ariel Pontes (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment First, Ariel Pontes, you say that lack wikipedia experience but it appears that you have been actively editing since 2007 -- and you definitely know how to move things in and out of draft. So I am going to consider you a fairly seasoned editor. The article, as it exists, does not reach notability through its sources, IMO. Of the references, 1, 6, 11-12 are the organization's own web site. I can't find ASUR mentioned in #2. There is one paragraph (out of a long article) in #3. In #4 there is one quote from a representative. #7&8 state that ASUR sponsored a festival, but there is not anything substantial about the organization. #10 is a member list. Any that I don't mention here I was not able to access. So, there is no substantial information in reliable sources. I would like to see some substantial sources listed here, or I think this needs to go back to draft. Note, I took a general look at the sources in the Romanian article and many of those would not be considered RS for notability in WP@en, but I didn't look at all of them. LaMona (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I am impressed by the sources listed below by —Мандичка . Not having the Romanian version of the name made searching hard, so I suggest that the Romanian name be listed prominently in the introduction for future usage. Also, those sources should be added somewhere (talk page?) ASAP so that they don't get lost. Ideally, the article should be updated to avoid future questions. I would advise removing the non-reliable sources from the article and replacing them with better sources if ones have been revealed. LaMona (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ariel: LaMona, I have some experience, yes, but you'll see on my history that I'm not that active and I've made mostly small changes. I mentioned my lack of experience because I don't know how to comment, reply, whether to discuss in the talk page of the article or the AfD page, etc. In any case it's a pointless discussion because it is subjective how much experience is "little" or "a lot". I just wanted to apologize in advance in case my replies are disorganized. Now about the article, ASUR is mentioned in #2, just do a Ctrl+F and write "ASUR", it's there. It is also mentioned in #3, #4, #5 and #7. The references that link to the NGO's own website are not included as evidence of notability, they're just references showing where to find more information. That I believe is also one of the purposes of references. None of the external references include substantial information about the organization, you're perfectly right. But this is also true for most humanist organization articles from non-english speaking countries and for all articles in the "NGO stub" category, as I mentioned in my last comment on this page. Ariel Pontes (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment The article was moved back from draft space to main space but had the AfD tag removed, which is not correct, since this discussion is not closed yet. I restored the tag. The sources are all either the organization's own website, or trivial mentions in directories and news about loosely related things. It fails WP:NORG, especially WP:CORPDEPTH, so far. And talking of Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association: First, please check out WP:OTHERSTUFF, and second, that article should be nominated for deletion too, since there are no independent sources at all, that could establish notability. Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - tl;dr - I have no idea why this was nominated for deletion. Easily meets GNG with large number of articles about the organization and its activities - nominator is reminded to look for native language sources before proposing deletion:, , , , , , , , ,   —Мандичка YO 😜 06:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ariel: Just to be clear, I wasn't the one who removed the deletion notice. I just brought it back from the draft namespace. Ariel Pontes (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Upon a source review, meets WP:GNG. North America1000 17:06, 28 May 2015 (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.