Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical Writers' 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Writers' Association

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

fails WP:ORG. 2 sources provided are not independent. Found nothing in bbc.com LibStar (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has independent sources which cover the association and its formation.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Most of those sources aren't "independent" at all. Some are plainly reprints of press releases and include the heading PRESS RELEASE just to be sure. At least one seems to be a very close paraphrase of a press release. What's interesting is that the comments section of one of those "sources" includes extensive advocacy for a different, older organisation with the same purpose with which this organisation is in direct competition. Methinks there might be some WP:PROMO involved, but that's less important. The fact remains I couldn't find anywhere near enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Stalwart111 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The fact that an independent medium choses to repeat information from a press release suggests that the medium believes it to be true. It is inevitably the case that the best source on many organisations is what they say about themselves. Some of it may be hyped up, but they have no motive for publishing falsehoods. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, plenty of regular "news" is based on press releases - its how journalists are notified about important events, opinions and announcements. I have no objection to journalism that happens to have been prompted by a press release. That's fine, but we're not talking about a journalist taking a press release, copying some quotes or facts and using them to build a story based on their own research and editorial considerations. We're talking about highlight, right click, copy, right click, paste. That's not journalism and its certainly not independent. Stalwart111 23:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage. Searches in a UK press archive and in JSTOR both drew a blank, which is quite telling. Moswento ^talky 08:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor trade association. No sources for notability , and no reason to expect any. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 24 April 2014 (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.