Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism Concern (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Despite there only being two keep ivotes being there, the GNG argument is enough to satisfy the discussion on notability. Also, JDDJS's nomination statement has not been supported with an argument, except that the article does not appear notable. I see the consensus being keep.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  09:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tourism Concern
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear notable. First nomination resulted in a speedy delete JDDJS (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I initially expected to !vote delete here, but my research indicates that this organization is quite prominent, has had a significant impact, and has enjoyed considerable news coverage over the years. I have added only a few of those references to the article, and I will add more, but I am quite convinced now that it meets the GNG - it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Consider for instance this very extensive profile of the charity in the prominent UK Independent newspaper. Thparkth (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral 100 members doesn't really speak of a huge organization, but the references are independent. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One quick point of information - the "100 members" was in 1991, two years after the charity was founded. According to their web page they have 900 members now. Thparkth (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was fine to speedy delete the article when there was no sources at all, but now that it's sourced with six articles either about the organisation or featuring them very prominently, it's good enough for me. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2010 (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.