Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Circle of Advocates

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 Snow keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Circle of Advocates

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

This is a private members club with invitation only membership and no inherent notability. Clubs do not inherit notability from their members. The threshold for membership is not enormous. This is the self styled great and good inviting other self styled great and good to declare themselves to be great and to be good. It lacks confirmation that it is, of itself, notable. There is cursory coverage at best in any sources at all, let alone reliable ones. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Silly nomination. "cursory coverage" is just not true - there is not only significant, but in fact feature coverage dating back 30 years from sources such as the Associated Press (see here); the New York Times (see here and here; Reuters (see here, reporting on admission of first woman into the organization in 1992); UPI (see here); and the Arizona Daily Star (see here). Google Books shows about 2,200 results. Membership in the organization was one factor analyzed in two studies - this one in 1991 and this one in 2005. I could go on and on, but I think this will suffice. Neutrality^talk 06:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - The topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline, per the reliable news sources provided above by User:Neutrality that provide significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I was mistaken. Weirdly the search I used did only show scant coverage. Mea culpa. So I withdraw the nomination. I do suggest that the references are added to the article, though. If we speak of silliness, it is silly to find them but not add them to the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:15, 22 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.