Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Mercury International

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 delete. fish&karate 11:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Mercury International

Seems to be a non-notable organisation. As far as I can see all it does is give awards to actual notable people - who of course then mention that they have been given an award... Cameron Scott (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This organization exists since 1961. It's not your run of the mill award-giver. They seem to vet the winners carefully. And they are independent from the people who receive the awards. Has anyone tried to find pre-internet sources about them. They might prove useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable organization. It is listed in many directories of Think Tanks (see this, for instance). all it does is give awards to actual notable people - who of course then mention that they have been given an award—this is a weak argument. After all this is also applicable to Norwegian Nobel Institute and Norwegian Nobel Committee: all they do is give awards to actual notable people - who of course then mention that they have been given an award. Ruslik (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no reliable sources establishing notability. This should have been speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment response to ruslik: I just checked the Norwedigna Nobel Institute article. That also deserves deletion since it, just like this article, is unsourced and non-notable. Feel free to nominate. The argument that one bad article belongs on wikipedia because there are other bad articles on wikipedia is never persuasive.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That the article is bad, does not mean it should be deleted. It should be improved. By the way, if Norwedigna Nobel Institute is not notable, Nobel Peace Prize is not notable too. :) Ruslik (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment let me be clear. The reasons for deletion are: no reliable sources, no established notability. Writing like an angel won't fix that.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I remain convinced this is spam and I see no improvement in sourcing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one is trying. :( I'm not doing it because I don't have access to the newspaper databases that could turn up sources, but why isn't anyone else? It's easy to call for deletion because the article lacks sources, it's a lot harder to actually try to find any. Deletion is just the easy way out. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good faith, I *did* look for sources and I *do* have access to such sources. Next time don't assume your fellow editors are too lazy to do any legwork - ask them instead. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the organization might meet WP:CORP, but there is enough spam to make Hormel and Monty Python ecstatic. Too much in the promotion department, very little in substance that is supported by citations from reliable sources independent of the organization. If there is to be an article on Gold Mercury International, this isn't it. It doesn't need a complete rewrite - it needs to be scraped clean and started anew... and only if the organization truly meets WP:CORP. B.Wind (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (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.