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. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Government Communicators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable organization. Prior PROD (with reason: "Non-notable organization. No significant coverage in Google news. Google web finds only the organizations site and various listings of the organization.") removed by IP editor who removed much promotional material from the article, but did nothing to actually assert any notability for the organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 16:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article's sole assertion of notability is its size (600 members) which makes it smaller than many schools. No sources plus no assertion of anything actually notable means it fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The National Association of Government Communicators (NAGC) is an important, fast-growing organization that provides valuable resources to its members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajfolk (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC) — Joshuajfolk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps. However, no reliable sources can be found to verify that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The National Association for Government Communicators provides a unique forum for those of us working as communicators in the public sector. Its educational conferences provide not only opportunities to improve our skills but also to network with fellow public agency communicators. It allows us to share with and learn from our public sector peers. Linda Horrell, Communications Manager for the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.239.43 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No claim is made that the group is not useful to those who belong to it. The article is nominated for deletion because there is no verifiable claim of notability. There are no independent sources that mention this group with any significance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the feedback, WikiDan61. Doing a quick web search, I have found three external sources that should provide enough verification that this non-profit organization exists, has a clear purpose, and recognizes today's leaders of government communication.

1) http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2009/05/awards7.html

2) http://joandetz.com/wordpress/?p=102

3) http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2008/07/awards.html

Hopefully, this helps. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajfolk (talk • contribs) 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Compared to other wiki entries - National Association of Government Contractors - I would consider the available external sources to be enough to validate the National Association of Government Communicators on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajfolk (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the existence of other bad articles is not a valid argument to keep this bad article. Second, the National Association of Government Contractors claims a membership of 400,000 and represents major industry players in their dealings with the US Government, while the National Association of Government Communicators claims a membership of 600; surely the former by dint of its scale alone is more notable than the latter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to claim that the Contractors article is bad. In fact, for the reasons you pointed out, Contractors deserves to be rightly placed on Wiki. Rather, I was comparing one article that is rightly placed (contractors) to another that should be rightly placed (Communicators). Your argument assumes that a professional association with more members deserves more notability than another professional association with less. However, your original argument for not placing the Communicator's article was that "no reliable sources can be found to verify that". So which is it? If it is the prior, how many members does it take to become notable? If it is the latter than I ask for you to reconsider the sources given.

Definition of a reliable source on Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles[2] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Let's begin with the first source: U.S. Geological Survey - third-party (yes) - published (yes - newsletter) - credible published materials (yes - USGS is a Federal Government Agency that has existed since 1879) - author generally regarded to as trustworthy (no evidence that they aren't)

We are trying very hard to provide you with the information you need to make Communicators an article on Wikipedia. If this most recent entry still does not provide you with enough evidence then please respond with exactly what you need from us. Wikipedia was not intended to block legitimate professional organizations from claiming their existence. Nor was it created to make the qualification process subjective to another user. I believe we can find a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajfolk (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 October 2009 (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.