Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europe Business Assembly
- 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. Sufficient evidence of notability not provided J04n(talk page) 10:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Europe Business Assembly
- Europe Business Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not assert notability, and a google search does not appear to turn up any references which are substantial and reliable and independent. ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creator of the article, I'm obviously for Keep. EBA is used by many institutions and persons (quite a few of which are in Wikipedia) to assert their own notability or quality. Note that Google searches for EBA will not turn up a lot of results because of frequent misspellings ("European Business Assembly" or even "Assembly of Europe", for instance) and because it's usually not EBA, but one or several of their many different awards that are listed on websites of various institutions. In a few cases, the awards are even claimed to be "from Oxford University" (see e.g. http://www.megatrend-edu.net/prof.php?bs=mica_jovanovic). I'd also add that the article is currently under heavy edit-warring by someone probably affiliated with EBA, and that it would be a lot more useful if the criticism section hadn't been summarily deleted for the simple reason of citing a blog. --Brindt (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the EBA is a racket. It's not actually doing anything illegal, but (from the evidence in the article) it awards people prestigious-looking prizes than asks them to pay for them themselves, and it confers bogus knighthoods. Obviously the EBA itself would like a WP article which gives it some credibility, while WP would be providing a better service to its readers by warning them that the EBA is a racket. However, what is relevant here is its notability. I am inclined to think that it's not notable, but I don't feel strongly on that issue. Maproom (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, what's up) 02:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Two source URLs are dead links, and there doesn't seem to be extensive coverage in RS independent of the subject. Company apparently exists solely to perpetuate its existence. Miniapolis 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the hint, it appears that Companies House does not like direct links to company information. Fixed. I'm not sure, though, how broken links are relevant for an AfD discussion. I'm even more puzzled about the "exists solely to perpetuate its existence" bit – how is this relevant for assessing notability, and isn't this what every company, regardless of size, is striving to do? --Brindt (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
- What I meant is that in my opinion this article fails WP:CORPDEPTH; the sources that are not self-published are primarily directory listings. Miniapolis 14:26, 19 February 2013 (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.