Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:International Board Game Studies Association

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. With a long note at the creator's talk page explaining myself in depth. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:International Board Game Studies Association


Has been submitted 6 times. No indepth coverage required for notability. Galobtter (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I would contest the proposal for deletion and also contest the alleged absence of notability.

The General Notability Guideline states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". The article is supported by a wide range of references, coverage includes newspaper and magazines articles, monographs and television whichi, taken together, are surely sufficient to establish "general notability".

Indeed, the General Notability Guideline affirms "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected".

Multiple sources have been provided and dates of publication range from 2007—2017 which would suggest that significance is not short-lived but is ongoing and, looking at the range of sources, of international interest. These latter points would seem to be in line with the Notability Guidelines for Organisations and Companies, specifically "Audience", which is international; and "Depth of Coverage", viz. "if the depth of coverage is not substantial then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability".

Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules, the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories, inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[3] the season schedule or final score from sporting events, routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

The "Alternate Criteria for specific types of organisations" specifies: "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization". I believe this criterion is satisfied by the range of sources cited. Further, as a non-commercial organisation, the International Board Game Studies Association is international in scope and a number of reliable sources, independent of the organisation have been cited.

On these grounds, I submit the article more than satisfies the notability requirements and I will submit it again for review and creation.

82.30.20.170 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.