Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATMIA

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. Consensus here is quite clearly keep, even when removing SPA input into the matter. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 08:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ATMIA

ATMIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Locally-based association of which the listed sources are still only PR, announcements, listings and trivial mentions, none of them genuinely amount to substance needed by our notaiblity policies and there's concerns as it is of this only existing as a business listing of which we are not. When an article closely focuses with "ATMIa and members are", "ATMIA and members can", "ATMIA's chief aim is to provide a forum for common issues among members including technical matters such as coordinating the global adoption of operating systems", "ATMIA has advocated", etc, that's PR speak, regardless of whatever or whoever, and that's also explicitly what our policies are against. We never accept articles simply by the sheer fact they are "informative and sourced" because our policies are far important compared to that. As such, this shouldn't have been accepted at all. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe TwistedSister has taken it against this entry. He/she has never been supportive and has not allowed to any reasoning nor discussion. The entry moved forward thanks to the help and support of other editors. So that I know of, at least three editors have seen this entry. So not a thing that it was approved without having it fully vetted.

But to make the case deletion

1) About notoriety,

An initial issue with this article was that it relied too much on ATMmarketplace, Business Wire and Finextra. Many of these were indeed PR notes, in no small measure thanks to my naivete as this is the first full article contribution. As mentioned above, thanks to the assistance of other wiki editors, these sources were diversified. These include a statement in the New York Times, on "the leading trade group" (ref 6), discussion within the future of Windows XP and 10 (ref 8), as well as evidence from parliamentary depositions by ATMIA members in the USA, Canada, Australia and Sweden (refs 21 to 26) among others.

In brief, I did took care and went at lengths to show independent notoriety while avoiding PR notes. So I do believe TwistedSister's view is based on an old version of the article rather than on the current and approved version.

2) ATM Industry Association has been referenced in the following wiki articles

cash machine / Automated Teller Machine (twice)

Windows XP (which corroborates footnote 8 in the current ATMIA article page)

KAL Software

MegaLink

Oberthur Cash Protection

So it is not orphan but, in my view, validated by other wiki articles.

CIM2014 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the contested AFD page creator: It obviously meets NCORP. I'm the one who accepted this AFC submission. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I know it's unfashionable to make arguments based on common sense around here, but I consider that the major national level trade group for each major industry should have an article. It's important that people know what they are, if only so they can properly judge sources emanating from them. Allsuch organizations have a promotional purpose, but we can state this in a NPOV fashion. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep having watched this page go through AFC and helping the creator make changes, there have been many improvements. Additionally, I have a really hard time believing all 38 references are crap (especially since I vetted a few of them on IRC). There's good coverage, it's not completely promotional, and I'm glad the creator stuck by their work to get it acceptable for the mainspace. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree this is a significant and important trade association with members from all over the world. As a user I navigated to this entry while checking sources in the ATM page. I found the article informative and I am very surprised it was marked for deletion. E. Efthymiou (Cyprus) 80.244.21.30 (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP aside, please state if you have COI and how this is a specific policy-based comment. SwisterTwister talk 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep where else in wikipedia do you find information about ATM industry and the research about it? this entry offer useful links and provides basic knowledge beyond simply PR. It offers an start point for further enquiry as it is the case for most wikipedia articles which provide an initial quick answer for most topics. M.Rubio (Spain) 81.37.247.142 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP aside, please state if you have COI and how this is a specific policy-based comment. SwisterTwister talk 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found extremely useful the information provided in this entry: by removing it there will be not other place to get accurate informtion on the ATM industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65gmarquez (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The full name is "ATM Industry Association", and it was originally named "ATM Owners Association". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I asked for advice from the Cafe this morning. Following these comments on how to improve the entry, I removed / fixed broken links/redirections. Also reduced the redirections in "see also" section.

I do not think that an association with several thousand members (indvidual and corporate) across 66 countries could be considered as 'Locally-based".Moreover, during edits one of the things removed was its corporate governance, where it was noted that staff is distributed throughout the world (just a handful are actually based in the USA - let alone South Dakota). Thanks, Bernardo

CIM2014 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that this organization is not a local one and the substantial sourcing provides required evidence of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2017 (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.