Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American College Personnel Association

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 no consensus. J04n(talk page) 11:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American College Personnel Association

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

The article, in the current state, has several issues ... issues that originally led me to tag this article with a {{Db-g11}} tag due to the article, in the current state, seeming like a self-promotion. Here are a couple of the issues this articles faces that led me to that conclusion:

The article was started by Acpa-collegestudent, with "ACPA" being the same initials as "American College Personnel Association". This makes this article's creator seem to have a conflict of interest.
The only cited source, at the present time, is American College Personnel Association's web site. In other words, the only source this article currently contains is information that was provided directly from the subject of this article ... once again, conflict of interest.
As stated above, the only source is its subject's own web page, meaning that this subject is only cited from one source; due to only one source being cited, this leads to questions regarding this subject's notability.

...but since this article doesn't seem to look like a promotion to at least one editor, let's discuss. Steel1943 (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2013 (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/2013 March 2. Snotbot t • c » 02:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Okay, the article is written like promotional BS and I can understand the unhappiness with that. But this professional organization has been around since 1924 — heading fast for a century — which means burden of proof, from my perspective, is on the argument to delete. Bowling Green State University holds the "American College Personnel Association collection" in its special collections, consisting of 135 linear feet of material. That's a crapload. HERE is their brief history of the organization, which definitely counts towards GNG. They note that the first name of the organization was "National Association of Appointment Secretaries" prior to a 1931 name change. Bottom line is that Wikipedia SHOULD have an article on this organization, although the piece as it currently sits needs to be fixed with a chainsaw. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing at all that this seems like an important organization, but you would not be able to determine that by the way this article is written at the present time. Due to the lack of citations, this article is borderline WP:OPINION, even with the detailed timeline of events. This article's information is a topic of speculation until more of this work can be cited from a third party source. In other words, this article might need to be deleted until a version of this article can exist that is able to be attributed better by third party sources. Steel1943 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, in case that was not clear. Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To stress my point about this article being an advertisement, looks like an editor recently found that there was a copyright violation/plagiarism on this article, and removed it in this edit: [1]. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there has GOT to be significant coverage out there about this organization. Google News finds 8 mentions in just the past month. Granted these are mentions, not significant coverage, but this pattern certainly suggests a high-profile, notable organization. I'll see if I can find some more significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2013 (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.