Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasen

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 keep. The developing consensus is keep and rename ; I'll do the necessary move DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasen[edit]

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

The article has insufficient sources mostly affiliated with the association. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 23:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original PRODer. §FreeRangeFrog 23:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is probably easier to find references under the subject's former title (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - yes, they probably abandoned it because standard terminology for its area of expertise has moved on, but at least the search doesn't get overwhelmed by anything and everything to do with German noses. From memory, the organisation's predecessors will almost certainly have been notable a few decades ago - but that was in another century and pre-Internet. I suspect that someone who knows exactly where to look might still establish notability for the current organisation - but unfortunately that someone isn't me. PWilkinson (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this is not notable, it ought to be. WP does not like abbreviations, so that perhaps the article should be at National Association for Special Educational Needs. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 17:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- I have found the organisation on the Charity Commission website (with the name in full - as well as the acronym) and have amended the lead in consequence. Its governing instrument is described as a memo and articles, which implies that it is alos a company. Its revenue is stated to be £893000 (Charity Commission annual return). It looks like the leading organisation in its field. While the trunover is not enormous, it is clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename -- The organization meets WP:GNG, but the use of the acronym instead of the full name is problematic. The article does, however, need to be expanded with third-party sources. I'll see if I can't add a few. Phoenixred (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added two scholarly journal citations (with quotes to help establish context), and a book. I hope this helps better demonstrate WP:GNG.Phoenixred (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but no Rename per WP:GNG and WP:COMMONNAME. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Charity Commission website clearly shows the correct full name is "National Association ...". Moving will leave a redirect from NASEN, which should be quite sufficient. WP dislikes acryonyms. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Large number of google Books hits on NASEN and "National Association for Special Educational Needs" ... many independent of the organization itself. I took the liberty of renaming the article from the acronym (NASEN) to the full name, since that seemed most consistent with WP naming policies, and because a few editors above recommended renaming. After re-naming, I noticed one editor (Presidentman) thought the acronym was better .... apologies for overlooking that. Feel free to move back if desired. --Noleander (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2012 (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.