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.
Delete: Near to a textbook case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL; this organization seems only to plump up this particular family. No independent sources, fails WP:ORG. There are a handful of Google News hits, most in obituaries, and none about the organization. Article created by a SPA who hasn't been active for over a year, and no other editors have made substantive improvements since; it's carried maintenance tags for a year. Article is orphaned as well. RGTraynor 09:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A brief search establishes that this organisation is, in fact, quite notable. The nomination does not mention or discuss these numerous sources and the matter has not been discussed at the article's talk page. The nomination thus fails our basic deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just out of curiosity, have you looked at any of those links to ascertain that they are about the organization instead of the family? Even a casual glance reveals that almost without exception, they have "GENEALOGICAL STUDY" all over the titles and text; they are obviously about the family and not about this organization. (This common false positive might have been avoided had you used "Shipleys of Maryland" in your search parameters rather than "Shipleys" + "Maryland;" the former parameter returns zero Google Books hits.) Beyond that, leaving aside that no one genuinely claims that talk page discussions are prerequisites to AfD, this article hasn't had a non-maintenance edit in thirteen months, the SPA creator's long gone from Wikipedia, and surely anyone who would notice a talk page discussion on this article would notice a AfD filed, and would have responded before a relisting. RGTraynor 11:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have looked at those links and, yes, some of them do discuss the organisation. As for the pre-requisites, these are clearly described at WP:BEFORE, "Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors.". This process follows the general consensus of our dispute resolution procedure which requires efforts to discuss with parties locally before going to a central forum such as this, "Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community.". Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Some of those links do discuss the organization in detail? Terrific; that would suffice, if it was true. Which ones, specifically? RGTraynor 21:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a WP:COATRACK for genealogy on the Shipley family. There's no evidence that this organization has any real notability (total lack of Gnews hits, for example). Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are numerous hits for the organisation in Google news and so your statement is false. It's curious that RG Traynor assets that there are zero Google Books hits when I see dozens in that link too. I wonder if there's some regional filter which is stopping you seeing the hits for some reason. Colonel Warden (talk)
I have asked you more than once now to provide links to reliable sources discussing this organization in "significant detail." There are none from Google News in the last month [1]. The archive search returns 21 hits [2], of which most are obituaries of officers or titles included in CVs. Not a single one discusses the organization in detail. I'll ask you once more: provide links to such sources. RGTraynor 01:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a definite coatrack article, using the group as a pretext for a lengthy article about this generally non-notable family. The article says virtually nothing about the group itself, which is not surprising since the group is not notable either. Most hits relate to its self-published book, and the Google Books hits are passing mentions of the book or newsletter in genealogical discussions, etc. Just not a notable organization, sorry. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:24, 31 December 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.