Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic development corporation

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 keep. John254 18:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economic development corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod, prod removed without details given, original prod rationale: There are notable organisations that share this as part of their name. I am unable to find, however, a reliable source discussing the general structure of such organisations. This is not surprising, as there are no particular legal restrictions, no mandated structure; it is not even restricted to state-level organisations, as some city- and county- level organisations of widely varying function also have this as part of their name. In the end, its just a collection of three words that some organisations working in economic development - and that too in a non-mainstream sense - tend to use. Relata refero (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There was no reason on the prod, and it appeared to meet V,NPOV,RS, etc. I don't know whether these are different from a chamber of commerce (as the article alleges), so I won't !vote for either keep or merge. Evidence of difference or sameness would be helpful. I don't think lack of structure, legal restrictions are a problem - many other types of organisation, such as humanitarian organisations are similarly amorphous, but their existence is well documented. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up (which I'll start). Appears to be notable, and does not violate the rules. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, but do they actually exist as something we can frame an article around? Or will it be at best a glorified disambiguation page? Relata refero (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. The article needs further development. Majoreditor (talk) 17:59, 21 February 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.