Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding and Event Videographers Association International


 * 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. The only arguments made for keeping the article merely state "I know of the organization so it must be notable" without providing any sources. Without sources, this article is not notable.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wedding and Event Videographers Association International

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

Can't find any sources for notability for this organization. Abductive (reasoning) 00:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WEVA is a wedding and event videographers association not unlike the Professional Photographers of America is to photographers, the only difference is that WEVA is younger than the PPA is.


 * Keep -- although I do agree that the article needs more of a encyclopedic feel than one that almost feels like it has to justify its trade to others in the industry. David Unit (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:ORG, no significant in depth third party coverage. . LibStar (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs a little more work and some fine tuning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.144.68 (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have selected this article out of all the articles nominated today as the most "keepable". I don't know how convincing an argument this is but my sister is a proud member of this organization.  As the largest professional organization of wedding photographers it is certainly notable.  Of course there are verifiable sources of information for this organization, and to say otherwise is laughable.  There are plenty of wedding trade magazines some dedicated completely to photography.  These magazines of course cover this organization.  And I don't want to here an argument here that in order to prove that a topic as obviously verifiable as this one has an obligation to prove that it is notable by going out and actually finding the proof.  Instead given the extensive coverage of the marriage industry, and the obvious relevance of this organization to it, I think that the people claiming it is not notable should provide some rational for this strange theory of non-notability.  Baring that, we should keep the article and encourage the authors to improve their already fine article thanking them for their past efforts.  Also deleting an article deletes the edit history, which in it self would be a terrible loss for this notable topic as all the hard work already done would be lost causing the people who worked in it to become discouraged.  There is no way that this organization is non-notable and a little effort will obviously reveal the proof of this, but whipping people who are not being paid to do extra work to keep their existing work from being undone seems to me to be very counterproductive in this case.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT, WP:EFFORT, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:IKNOWIT are arguments to avoid. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to improve the article, just post some rockin' sources here and I will withdraw the nomination. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I read the somewhat dubious essay your link to and found the following quite in it. "just because an argument appears here does not mean that it is always invalid."  The topic of this article is clearly verifiable and notable.  There are plenty of articles in the many trade mags on the wedding industry about it.  What we are arguing about is if the article can be sourced.  Clearly it can, BTW the essay I looked at did not really have any sources?  So great somebody listed some of these in this case clearly valid arguments in a taxonomy of arguments.  Pointing that out with out any reasoning why they are not valid in this case does not provide any rational on why these arguments which are clearly valid in this case should not be taken into consideration.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources? Abductive  (reasoning) 07:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * agree with Abductive, best way to save an article is to show the sources. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I've heard of this organization. Somebody needs to fix the article. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't fix the article, just provide some sources here, in this AfD, and I will withdraw the nomination. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this count? http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Column/Conference-Wrap-Up/WEVA-Expo-2008-All-Business-50406.htm David Unit (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * hardly it's written by someone in the same industry and likely to be a member of this association. we need third party reliable sources, like a major newspaper.LibStar (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it was in US News and World Report or one of those kinds of magazines some years back, but I can't seem to find the archive for it.

http://www.weddingdetails.com/planning/weddingvideo.cfm

http://www.wednet.com/articles/10TipsForATerrificWeddingVideo.aspx

David Unit (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. The article has zero sources, so I see exactly zero reasons to keep it. I also find its claims for notability dubious.  Rklawton (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The results of the previous vote were keep, I voted to keep the last time, can I vote again?TeamQuaternion (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - no. The general idea is to solicit more input.  Besides, AfD isn't a vote.  It's a discussion.  The admin closing the discussion doesn't count votes.  He or she weighs the arguments presented and then decides.  On the other hand, you're welcome to add new information not already provided if you like.  New information is always helpful and can even work to encourage people to switch their vote.  Rklawton (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2009 (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.