Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Futures Forum

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Futures Forum[edit]

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

I couldn't be sure that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It reads like an advert, and an IP has confirmed their coi. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years now. Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article was really awful and I can see why it was nominated for deletion. There hadn't any useful updates or content additions since 2009. Worse still, the two main contributors previously seemed to be polar opposites- the article was started by someone who cast a quite critical eye over the organisation's activities, then someone appeared with a blatant COI and changed lots of bit they didn't like but without displaying much insight into how a Wikipedia article should be constructed. Anyhow... I think the organisation itself is notable. (I had come across the article in the past and had considered editing but had always found something else to do as there was just too much work needed). I have given the article a major rewrite. You will find the tone is now neutral and appropriate for an encyclopaedia and I hope I have included enough information and secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 22:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment relisted thanks to significant contributions by Drchriswilliams (talk · contribs) so that the new article may be assessed. Nakon 22:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the dramatic improvement in cited sources (The Scotsman and Holyrood seem together to just about meet WP:SECONDARY). The article's content is dramatically better. Nice job! Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2015 (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.