- 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. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Conflict of interest; author's username = article name and he has 4 edits as of my writing this. I honestly can't tell, without references, whether this group is notable, but the burden of proof rests with the author. I am also nominating the following miscellany:
- User:TAPPI - similar content as the article.
Shalom Hello 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs to be monitored for COI problems, apparently, but TAPPI is certainly a notable organisation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as noted by Starblind. (COI notice: I placed the tags there.) Bearian 19:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the leading organisation in the industry. I've editing it down-it said everything at least twice, including an irrelevant justification of why trade organizations are important. DGG 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers alone don't necessarily create notability. Unsourced numbers... ? -- Y not? 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources if one looks for them. Google News Archives for TAPPI +paper brings 3,500 results. They're notable enough that even personnel changes within the organisation make news. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:43, 7 July 2007 (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.