Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Food Science and Technology

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. Passes Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH Guerillero | My Talk 05:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Food Science and Technology

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As Itsalleasy said, there is no significance. There are also no outside sources; only the company's website itself. United States Man (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have sufficient significance as a recognized professional body. --Michig (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I have added a couple of references though more are really needed to demonstrate WP:ORGDEPTH. However I can see their membership listed in UK legislation as a food examiner qualification, its presidency listed among the attributes of a member of the General Advisory Committee on Science, and articles such as this from the Guardian treat it as a key industry body on a par with the CBI, which is tending towards evidence. AllyD (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Professional associations in major countries are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a professional association concerned with accrediting practitioners and maintaining standards. Even if small, it should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 5 January 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.