Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Mercury International (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Mercury International[edit]

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

Article was deleted via WP:G11. That deletion was appealed to deletion review. The result of the review was to restore the article and list it on AfD, as is normal for a contested proposed deletion. My listing it here is purely an administrative function; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion - Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified delete I had it speedied because I felt it was utterly promotional. It's common practice to delete articles without redeeming qualities and start over. Indeed, it's one valid rationale. However, I would have no objections to restoring this version. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is clearly notable, as shown by a Google Books search. I agree that the version speedied was hopelessly promotional. I have restored it to an earlier and more neutral version that lists some of the award winners. This is, to me, the main interest in the article. I may expand and move it to a title that focuses on the award. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks like the restore and rewrite has fixed the article. It is cited and referenced. Many of the references would not, by themselves pass reliable source levels. Some of them do seem reliable and the others are prolific enough that I feel that it has passed the WP:N and WP:V levels for inclusion. Pmedema (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a very strange article. For example, the source for the receipt of an award by Brezhnev is the "youngstown Vendicator" -- hardly an expected source for that information. I looked (randomly) at the 2006 awards. There are 7 "winners", 2 of whom are listed on the "International Advisory Board" page of the organization. The one winner in 2009 is also on that page. The awards seem to have been given out yearly until 1989, after which they come out every 2, 3 or 4 years. Note that none of the references in the article are about either the organization or the award, just about to whom the award has been given. It all may be on the up-and-up, but if this were a US non-profit I would love the look at their 990's. There is absolutely no mention of sponsors, fund-raising, nada. This article may solid, but the organization itself just begs for some investigative journalism. LaMona (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of sources are just about recipients, but a number discuss the original or current organization and the people who run it, such as this one. The subject is real enough and notable enough. I get the impression that in the cold war period the host countries provided the funding. The Kabul New Times 1980-10-28 (zoom in) also reports the Brezhnev award and gives a reasonable explanation of the operation at that time. Later the number and frequency of awards seems to have tapered off. The current organization advertises consulting services, and perhaps just keeps the awards on life support as a sort of status symbol. Maybe somewhere there is an investigative report that explains it all more clearly. I could not find one. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A whopping 61 sources!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 17 August 2014 (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.