Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The AKU Society


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The AKU Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find, that this organisation satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was written by an editor, now blocked, with a clear conflict of evidence. A speedy deletion under CSDs A7 & G11 (no indication of significance and promotion) was declined by DGG. (My own feeling is that the original form of the article was borderline for both of those criteria, and I have no quarrel with DGG for giving it the benefit of the doubt.) A PROD, giving the reason "No significant coverage in independent sources", was removed by a single purpose IP editor, with the edit summary "Added additional references and removed deletion notice". However, neither of the two references added could by any stretch be considered as substantial coverage in an independent source. For convenience, here is an analysis of all the references in the article:
 * 1) A listing on the UK charity commission's web site. All this does is confirm that the organisation exists, is registered as a charity, and filed accounts and an annual return for 30 June 2011.
 * 2) An announcement that a "public relations agency" has named the AKU society as their "heroes of the year". Since the public relations agency (Tudor Reilly) on its web site lists the AKU society as one of their clients (see http://www.tudor-reilly.com/clients), this is not independent coverage.
 * 3) A page on the society's own web site.
 * 4) A page on the web site of the "findAKUre consortium". It is not clear to me how independent of the AKU society this organisation is, but in any case the only mentions of the society are two links, one to the society's own web site, the other a dead link.
 * 5) An announcement on the web site of the University of Liverpool that a trust associated with the university is undertaking some work in conjunction with the AKU society. Not an independent source, and in any case there are just three brief mentions of the AKU society, which does not constitute substantial coverage.
 * 6) Another page on the society's own web site.
 * 7) Another page on the society's own web site.
 * , 9, 10, 11. Web sites of what the article calls "sister arms of the AKU Society".

Clearly none of this is substantial coverage in independent sources, and none of it goes anywhere towards establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. GregJackP  Boomer!   16:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom's analysis; there are some independent passing mentions, but these do not suffice for notability. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails notability guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks substantial non-trivial coverage. without denigrating what this society does, it seems like a small charity focussed on a rare condition and thus not much general awareness about it, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be a vehicle for publicising it.  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 03:43, 4 January 2013 (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.