Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workforce Strategy Center

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 due to changes and references added since beginning of AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workforce Strategy Center

Seems to be mostly advertising, but there does seem to be an assertion of notability. Delete uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. Reads very much like a company trying to increase their hits online, therefore making wikipedia their inroad to notability. To prove it, a google "news" search reveals exactly zero results for this organization. If they were notable, wouldnt' somebody write about them independently? Keeper | 76 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will consider the comments my colleague and I have made in Talk:Workforce Strategy Center in support of the Workforce Strategy Center article. Thank you. Jalssid (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisig. Marlith ^T/C 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a notable entity per WP:CORP, being covered to some extent in various significant publications. The problem is not with the entity but with the writing, which sounded too much like a press release; I have edited it somewhat to correct this. Herostratus (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Herostratus (and anyone else), do you have any links that you could provide that show coverage in various significant publications? I wasn't able to find any. Keeper | 76 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notwithstanding my deletionist tendencies it does seem to be well enough sourced (now - the article has been improved very recently) to show a degree of Wiki-notabilty. Springnuts (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, thank you all for your comments and for your help with the article. As you can probably tell, we are new to this. In addition to the current links in the article, Workforce Strategy Center has received coverage from major publications that either charge a fee for access to their archives or (so far as we can tell) no longer have their articles available online. For example, we have been written up a number of times in The Chronicle of Higher Education which charges for access to their archived stories. Is there a way stories such as the ones in The Chronicle might be referenced in the article? I would be happy to provide citations. Thanks. Jalssid (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is absolutely OK to use Chronicle of Higher Education and other paid sources for references. External links must be available without charge, but not references--they can come from any published source, print or online, paid access or free access, English on non-english, as long as they are available in some way to the public.CHE is available in thousands of libraries. and many people here (including me) can provide copies of individual online articles to individuals use in writing or verifying an article. Once you have, them, you can include a short quote from them of a sentence or so to demonstrate the notability of make a point in the article. You presumably have an archive of where stories on you have appeared. Just use them. DGG (talk) 01:45, 12 January 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.