Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CountrySTAT

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 of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reads like non-notable organization spam, author refuses to clean it up Adolphus79 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, organization is a subsection of United Nations/FAO. If not expanded substantially in the next few days, then Merge FAO Travelbird 22:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Like World Agricultural Trade Flow and World Agricultural Trade Matrix, this article is not about an organization, but about a statistical tool used by the FAO. Since this information will be uninteresting to most readers of FAO, I suggest that these three articles should be merged to a FAO statistical tools article rather than to FAO. 132.239.90.209 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The FAO is a United Nations organisation - hardly non-notable! This is useful and encyclopaedic, BlueValour 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Cleanup or Delete - The article had four external links to a single software company's site. I eliminated three, but I'm not sure the fourth needs to stay. I think all of the articles that 132.239.90.209 suggested merging are excellent candidates for merging - none establish notability on their own in my eyes, but as a group they offer the beginnings of a good article. Of course, given that the general level of statisical illiteracy is (necessarilly) higher than the general level of mathematical illiteracy, I don't know how many readers such an article will attract, but it would be more helpful to them than each tool having its own article. GRBerry 23:29, 21 June 2006 (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.