Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.E.L.T.A. Rescue

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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew with no outstanding delete !votes. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D.E.L.T.A. Rescue

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite notability claims, a [Gnews search] turns up "PRweb" and similar press release sites, with few exceptions. I don't see any reliable sources with a normal gsearch either. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep ~~for now. WP:BITE the article was only started 22 minutes ago.~~ Reliable sources provided. Ikip (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep – ~~Lacks references to support notability and has no associated GHits or GNEWS.~~ Changed "vote" based on added references and comment below. ttonyb (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The confusion may stem from the organization having two names, and the author going by the abbreviation. 36 book hits 51 news hits 11 full articles in the Los Angeles Times over the past 30 years. Ikip (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikip has done a good job of sourcing; however, according to WP:ORG, one requirement for non-commercial organizations is that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale." Coverage, as noted, should also be international/national/or at least regional; the sources are mainly local. My concern at this point is that I want to be consistent with the rulings of similar AfDs; from a strict reading of WP:ORG, it doesn't look like this organization quite makes the cut. I'd like to hear from other editors. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if this article is kept, we may want to rename it to the more common name. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section quoted is under "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations: The following sections discuss other alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations...Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated."

The major and first criteria on WP:ORG, Wikipedia:ORG#Primary_criteria has been met and exceeded. I am going to bring up the contradiction this second, alternative section has seemed to cause. I can think of so many organizations which have a local scope which meet all notability guidelines, and yet which would fail this "alternative" criteria.

But I appreciate Mr. Vernon wanting to get more opinions on this subject. I agree with Mr. Vernon that the article should be renamed.Ikip (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should sources be not be Local? What policy or guideline says that? A WP:RS is a RS no matter where it is from. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 17:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I'm satisfied with the notability of the org. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.