Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mutual Fund Directors Forum

The Mutual Fund Directors Forum entry is not an advertisement, nor is the Forum a club. The Forum does not advertise, and membership is only open to independent directors of mutual funds, not the public. The article clearly notes that the Forum is historically significant because of the reasons it was formed and its mission. The SEC does not request formation of private, educational or self regulatory organizations; however, in response to sweeping scandals in the mutual fund industry, In this case it did. The speeches cited are those of SEC commissioners (linked directly to the SEC's website)that remark on this unique distinction.

Wikipedia contains any number of entries to similar nonprofit organizations and foundations that are also not considered advertisement or solicitation. see: Investment Company Institute This is a similar membership organization in the same industry, but its members are on the management side of mutual funds, not their boards of directors. And it even cites its own website as a source. The Forum's entry does not. DJDeedle (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * None of this addresses the central question of notability. The question is whether the organisation is notable, not whether it is worthy. Pointing to other articles that are similar does not justify the existence of this article. Each article must prove its own notability. Mayalld (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mayalld is correct, and if you feel other articles should be deleted, feel free to nominate them. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see your own Wiki reference:WPOTHER STUFF says: "Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this." You have done just that: dismissed the comment because of a comparative statement. DJDeedle (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)