Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Scientists, Developers and Faculties

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Scientists, Developers and Faculties

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

Borderline obvious-promotion article is entirely sourced to non-independent sources. The few sources which are not controlled by ASDF are a couple of their "award winners" touting that they won the award. There are serious verifiability problems here. For example, they claim more than 200,000 members, yet their membership database only lists 451 student members. I could not locate any coverage in independent sources. Lanugage should not be a factor since the organization is named in English. It is clear that this organization exists, what is not clear is whether it's anywhere near as large or relevant as the article makes out, considering the utter lack of coverage. Revenue is claimed to be $78,000, I don't know if that's since creation, or what, but that is another thing that is incongruent with their claim of being a major international organization with 200,000 members in 72 countries. All in all, this should probably be deleted until secondary coverage exists so we can have a verifiable article. Gigs (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no evidence of notability and the article reads solely like a pamphlet to promote the organization. Of the dozens of citations, none of them are reliable and independent, and the majority of them are from ASDF's own website. A thorough search for news or general coverage of the organization that would establish notability turns up nothing. No proof, no article. We won't even get into the huge amount (probably 95%) of non-encylopedic content that would need to be removed should this article somehow miraculously survive this process. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC) 19:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant puffery --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In our institute at MES College of Engineering they have a chapter containing around 1272 members. Our institute has opted out of publicity and asked not to include the names in their website. Similraily I knew many instutes such like this where they have opted-out for non-publicity. I had been as part of their said conference icca which happens everyyear. In Jan 2012, I visited their conference, it was amazing to see many people from various parts of the country. You can find the images of the same at events.technoforum.co.in Am not sure that they have 200,000 members similiar to what Gigs has said. But am sure that it has more than 50,000 members. I will do update the same after enquiring the same to the students who went to their office for internship. 122.169.1.88 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just accept someone's word to verify content; everything you wrote is original research. I don't think anyone doubts the organization exists. The huge problem is that there are no reliable sources to establish its notability, not to mention the fact that the article is one giant advertisement comprised predominantly of non-encylopedic content. There are many worthy organizations that aren't notable. An article cannot exist without proof of notability. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree to the same point. They refuse to give information publicly. In accordance to the policy of Wikipedia, this must be deleted then. 122.169.1.88 (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find next to nothing in terms of useful reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sole keep argument appears to be purely WP:OR, and the user has changed his mind. Qworty (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that it's the same user. I read the follow-up but somehow didn't notice it was the same IP. Haha. But they're still registered as a keep. Can another editor strike the "Keep" on the original comments and replace it with "Comment", and add "Delete" on the follow-up comments? Or does IP 122 have to do it? They indeed said, "this must be deleted". --76.189.101.221 (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any need to change the words in bold, because if this is closed by one of our competent admins the change of opinion will be taken into account. I wish I didn't have to include the words "shouldn't" and "if" in that statement, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be, and those who get granted admin powers these days seem to be those who perform lots of unthinking robotic edits that conform to the letter of policy, rather than those who have actually demonstrated understanding of the concept of an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - clearly an advertisement masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. --No unique names 17:30, 27 November 2012 (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.