Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intertel (group)
- 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Intertel (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of organizations. No reliable sources have been found for the article, even after a previous PROD. After further diligent search and discussion on the article talk page, it appears that no reliable sources can be found about the organization or its activities. Therefore the article is nominated for deletion discussion for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone found any reliable sources at all about this organization? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, weakly: There's this, from Kiplinger's Personal Finance, and a Google Book search shows a few seemingly legitimate books that mention Intertel, if fleetingly (in the context of "high-IQ societies such as Mensa and Intertel...") Not super-significant RS coverage, but I think with those secondary-source mentions the group does eke by on notability. 28bytes (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking. Doesn't the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline require "significant" rather than fleeting coverage of a topic that is suitable for a Wikipedia article? It does seem, on the basis of what I have seen so far on the article talk page and here, that there are not sufficient reliable sources in any form to write an encyclopedia article about this subject, which would be grounds for deletion under the verifiability policy quite apart from notability concerns. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran a Google News Archive search for +Intertel +Mensa to filter out any references to other uses of the word "Intertel" (assuming any article about Intertel would mention Mensa in passing). Seems like there are plenty of reliable source candidates in those results. I'm not sure how much depth of coverage they have, but the breadth of coverage is definitely there. 28bytes (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On closer look, most of the GNA search results appear to be obituaries mentioning that the deceased was a member, so that's not of much use in the RS department. However, there do appear to be a couple of promising sources about the organization itself:
- Miami Herald, The — THE BRIGHT STUFF — Jan 27, 1985
- Chicago Tribune — Mensa: A social club for the mind-over-matter crowd — Oct 26, 1982
- Sacramento Bee — IQS ARE HIGH AMONG THE MEMBERS OF MENSA. HOW HIGH? THEY DON'T ASK - AND THEY DON'T LIKE TO TELL — Dec 21, 1994
- On closer look, most of the GNA search results appear to be obituaries mentioning that the deceased was a member, so that's not of much use in the RS department. However, there do appear to be a couple of promising sources about the organization itself:
- I ran a Google News Archive search for +Intertel +Mensa to filter out any references to other uses of the word "Intertel" (assuming any article about Intertel would mention Mensa in passing). Seems like there are plenty of reliable source candidates in those results. I'm not sure how much depth of coverage they have, but the breadth of coverage is definitely there. 28bytes (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking. Doesn't the Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline require "significant" rather than fleeting coverage of a topic that is suitable for a Wikipedia article? It does seem, on the basis of what I have seen so far on the article talk page and here, that there are not sufficient reliable sources in any form to write an encyclopedia article about this subject, which would be grounds for deletion under the verifiability policy quite apart from notability concerns. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, they're all behind a paywall. So I think we're probably left with the Kiplinger piece (and maybe this) for now, unless someone has access to the paywall stories (or other sources.) It's not great, but we do have evidence that Intertel has been discussed repeatedly by reliable secondary sources, so I think I'll stick with my (weak) keep for now. 28bytes (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, weakly - They have a webpage here and are listed here. True, a membership of "about 1,200 in thirty countries" (updated in 1/2010) is dwarfed by Mensa, but it still seems far more notable than the stray rugby players I keep coming across in here.
- 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.