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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Environmental Group[edit]

I myself have created this article of a local environmental organization. However, I recently received an e-mail from the organization, requesting me to delete the page as it violated their policy or something related to that. I request whoever concerned to delete this article as soon as possible. Gautham Manoj Pillai (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the author has asked for it and will get him in trouble with the organisation Seasider91 (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the message seriously. I am a member of the organization, and they have sent me a direct e-mail asking me to delete it. I created the article. I'm new to Wikipedia (not more than 8-9 months) and I request someone to make the process clear to me.--Gautham Manoj Pillai (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be a G7 case. However, assuming it's not WP:COPYVIO, if you're not employed by the organisation I'm not sure how they could "get you in troble" for writing about them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Reliable sources are available and the article does not seem a copyvio; I might have missed some link on the primary site or other site while checking this. Therefore relisting for a last look by editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 03:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as demonstrated by Northamerica1000, whose work has made the G7 argument more difficult. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so you can explain to whoever contacted you that you made a good-faith attempt to have the article deleted, but others found it noteworthy enough for coverage. Whether an organization wants to be represented on Wikipedia has absolutely no bearing on whether it will be or not; just ask the scores of non-notable companies who have seen their promotional articles deleted. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2012 (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.