Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Association of Policy Market Makers

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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Policy Market Makers[edit]

UK trade association of doubtful notability. Top hits on a Google News search seemed to be either passing mentions or publicity material. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: I didn't think of it at the time, but one alternative to deleting this is to WP:merge with Endowment selling. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete An unsourced article about a non-notable group. I don't think it belongs on here. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~. Possible hoax or conflict of interest: a trade association for which no sources have been offered. It is likely that the real purpose of the article is to support an external link to the individual business that currently sits on the end of the article. By the time you read it, that link will likely be gone. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom comments. Not a hoax: it is verifiable per [1]. I don't think COI is a reason for speedy. However still borderline WP:NOT and almost certainly not notable --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly, even as rewritten. This started as an article that spoke in vague but glowing terms about the high standards expected of people in the endowment selling business, with an inappropriate link to an individual business: obvious spam. This minor trade association has been consulted by journalists seeking information about the business. Don't see anything about the association in its own right. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from prominent British newspapers. --Eastmain (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- articles are about the industry, (the association is used as a spokesperson for the industry); not significant extensive coverage for me, I'm afraid --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADS--Finalnight (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The new references almost do it, but the articles are not sufficiently about the subject, but only mention the subject in passing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2008 (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.