Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible Government

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visible Government

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

A small group that did indeed present a paper to a Commons committee, I can find no evidence that this apparently defunct group (its official website is not working) ever met WP:NGO, based on Google search results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails any notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable source coverage to establish any notability under WP:ORGDEPTH, and presenting a position paper to a House of Commons committee is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie in the absence of media coverage about the fact. Also WP:COI (surprise surprise), as the creator's userpage freely displays a link to his own website which verifies that he has the same name as this organization's former executive director. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero Independent source, no coverage by 3rd party sources thus failing WP:GNG. Not talk with of WP:CORPDEPTH which can only exist when there is some reliable independent sources already. — Ammarpad (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2017 (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.