Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tibet Society UK


 * 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. Fram (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tibet Society UK

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Article is a promotion for an entity/group and all of the sources listed detail other events/ organizations/ news items, instead of the supporting the notability of the article's subject.  TN ‑ X - Man  13:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- Sounds more like an advertisement/promotion for the Tibet Society, Wikipedia is not an advertising agency.-- S R X  -- Latino Heat  14:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

'''Advertising requests the audience/readership to subscribe or purchase some form of product, there is no such content in this article. I have now edited considerably and wish to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria - please be constructive in your criticism rather than just dismissing the article for deletion. Look at similar entries for NGOs, if this content is 'promotional' shouldn't most entries for organisations of this kind be deleted? Are there concrete guidelines as to what constitutes a promotion as opposed to a descriptive entry of what an organisation does?''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibetsociety (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Most advertising simply raises awareness.  When was the last poster for Levi's you saw that noted the price or offered a specific contract for purchase?  Specifically on wikipedia, something is considered propotion or advertising if the bulk of the content on the page either points to or praises an organization or person and the only sources are from that organization or person.  Even if the tone is neutral, if the only sources are press releases and the like, it is an inappropriate use of the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete BBC mention is trivial. Notability isn't asserted. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete My first reaction upon reading the article was "They've (supposedly) been around for 50 years and that's all they've done?!"  Googling seems to confirm non-notability.  Their two major campaigns as stated in the article, "Support Tibet Not Terror" scores 10 Google hits and "Bring Tibet to the Olympics" scores just 5 hits, and in both cases the bulk of them were their own website, Wikipedia, and their own Facebook.  Their own website has no Alexa rank and apparently gets less visitors than my own personal site does.  The above coupled with a lack of non-trivial reliable sources leads to the inevitable conclusion that this is simply not a notable group which has caught on in any measurably impactful way.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent coverage found in Google News -- most mentions are quoting spokespeople.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (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.