Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Association of Former Members of Congress


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 03:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

United States Association of Former Members of Congress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, as most Google hits are about statements or visits, not about the organisation itself. As is stated on the talkpage by FMCintern: Unfortunately much of the information used must be cited from the subject's website because it is not published anywhere else., severely undermining the notability of this organisation. The Banner talk 21:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Banner: When I wrote that, I meant that information such as the organization's leadership and history are not available elsewhere; there are many articles and other media sources that cover the organization's work. FMCIntern (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Most sources that I found were indeed about their activities, not about the organisation. The Banner talk 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a significant organization comprised of prominent political and former political figures operating in a non-partisan manner. It has issued a number of reports, conducts educational and charitable programs including participation by prominent people, and has the unique privilege of holding its annual meetings each year on the floor of the House of Representatives, with the proceedings reported in full in the Congressional Record. Deletion would not improve the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly notable. Some news articles about this organization from the Google newspaper archive: "Former members of Congress recall past", Associated Press, May 24, 1986; "The congressional alumni association", UPI, May 14, 1987; "Former congressmen share their experience", UPI, September 11, 1982. Examples of less thorough but still relevant coverage:   . --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mja, that makes three references in a tiny newpaper (circulation 10k), 2 passing mentions, passing mention/social chitchat, passing mention in an article about a group visit. Nothing to prove the organisation is notable. The Banner talk 18:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - the coverage noted above shows notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree w/ Banner's analysis of the sources; they are, at least as far as this organization is concerned, tangential mentions which don't amount to significant coverage. The coverage is dependent on the individuals, who, while certainly notable during their actual careers, the mentions of the article subject just refer to them getting together to socialize, or tour Utah, as opposed to anything the group has done which establishes notability. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here IMHO... Roberticus  talk  19:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * U.S.-Japan Joint Statement: The United States and Japan: Shaping the Future of the Asia-Pacific and Beyond, National Archives Hosts Discussion on Civil Rights, School groups meet Congressmen at Rothermere American Institute, Congress to Campus Will Bring Influential Decision Makers to Rhode Island College, Congress to Campus: LSU’s Reilly Center to Host Former Congressmen, just to list a few. FMCIntern (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, for what it is worth, I found this quote from President Obama: "When I visited Berlin this past June and stood at the Brandenburg Gate, I celebrated the strong and vital bond that united Americans and Germans. For three decades, The Congressional Study Group on Germany (CSGG) has worked to enrich this bond, helping to fortify the relationship between the United States and Germany. By promoting dialogue between legislators, the CSGG generates insights into our important partnership and enhances understanding between our countries. And by focusing on our shared agenda—spurring economic growth and job creation, expanding transatlantic trade and investment, and promoting freedom, security, and prosperity around the globe—the organization is helping to build a stronger future. Congratulations on 30 years of strengthening ties. I wish you all the best for the years ahead." and this quote from Angela Merkel: "The Congressional Study Group on Germany is celebrating its 30th anniversary. This in itself shows its members’ commitment to fostering the close relations between our two countries and filling them with vibrancy. This is an aim which I wholeheartedly share. I am very grateful for our meetings, which have always guaranteed a valuable exchange of views on issues of common interest. An open and trusting dialogue – that is precisely what makes the links between parliamentarians on both sides of the Atlantic such an important pillar of the German-American partnership and friendship." FMCIntern (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not really convinced. You put 5 more sources up. 3 of these don't mention the AfD subject by name at all, 1 mentions it once in the 6th paragraph, and the last one mentions in 1 time in the first sentence, but mentions the Reilly Center 5 times and the Congress to Campus program 4 times. Nor does the Obama quote mention the AfD subject by name; if the "Congressional Study Group on Germany" is notable, perhaps it should have its own article. Roberticus  <span style="font-family:'Century Gothic',serif;color:blue">talk  20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Congressional Study Groups and the Congress to Campus Program are both part of the United States Association of Former Members of Congress, as mentioned in the article. You asked for evidence of what the organization actually does, this is that evidence, and now you are nit-picking. FMCIntern (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And sorry, mr. Intern, there is no need to bully a nominator into retracting an AfD, as you try at User_talk:The_Banner. Contrary, in my twisted mind that only acts as prove that you are involved and fighting to protect your article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to bully you, I was trying to argue my point, which you chose to ignore multiple times. It is frustrating when I am trying to have a discussion about one topic, and you continue to avert the discussion to another, unrelated, topic. FMCIntern (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See also and . Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The rotten question: is a government source independent enough in relation to a government subsidized and chartered organisation? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The first of the two sources I cite is the official Deschler-Brown compilation of the precedents of the House of Representatives, which corroborates what I said at the outset of this discussion, which is that the Association of Former Members has for many years had the privilege of holding its annual meeting on the floor of the House with the proceedings published in extenso in the Congressional Record. This is a unique feature of this organization and evidence of notability. The second source I cite is an encyclopedia and not a government source at all. This is, with all respect, a misguided nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It just gives me the feeling that is supposed to be notable because it is American. Everybody here is throwing with sources, big, small or passing mentions, but nothing happens on the article. That is still a piece of promo written by a company intern based on primary sources that fail to establish notability. I am one of those twisted guys that just want to see notability in the article, I do not believe somebodies word on it. So when you have neutral proof of the notability, throw it into the article. The company intern will not create a neutral article... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This makes a lot of sense, especially since the article has a tag for needing more third-party/independent sources. The Banner, of the sources included in this discussion, do you see any that would fulfill your requirement so far? I'd be happy to add the sources to the article. Abroham1024 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That second source of NewyorkBrad shows potential to prove notability, his first source might by failing the "independent"-criteria. None of the sources of mr. Intern. Several other sources might by useful to prove details (for instance current and former president). <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am new to editing, but it seems like the sources provided above do make the subject notable. According to Notability, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Does this give merit to the articles where the subject is mentioned/discussed but is not the main topic of the source? Again, I am new to editing so I could be wrong. Abroham1024 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG. Adding to the above, here is an ABC News piece talking with Rep. Connie Morella, president of USAFMC. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per NewyorkBrad and Carrite and others. Funny in the Connie Morella ABC news piece, that she is characterized as "the president of a sort of recovery group for former lawmakers: The U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress."  It is a kind of group that sometimes can have importance at a national level, similar to retired generals and retired presidents and judges whose views cut through a lot of b.s. occasionally in the news. -- do  ncr  am  01:42, 16 July 2014 (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.