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. MBisanztalk 22:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Written like an advertisement, almost all sources are third-party or unreliable third party. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree that "almost all sources are third-party or unreliable third party".
The original reason for nomination for deletion was claimed to be "No assertion of notability". In response, I posted on the VetFran Talk page, the rebuttal to the "No assertion of notability", and also added addition material to the VetFran article, and references. You can check the history of the article.
There are now 13 references to the article, including a reference to the VetFran website, which is definitely not a third party reference.
I claim that the article IS notable.
I cite the Wikipedia page on notability: I believe the Vetfran article has verifiable sources.
In response to the nomination to delete this VetFran article, the reason stated is "No assertion of notability". However, there was no reason stated in the proposal to delete as to why the article VetFran lacked notability. I cite the Wikipedia page WP:Not notable - "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just encyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline"."
Also, in the Wikipedia Notability guidelines page, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." and "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."
In the right side of the Wikipedia notability page, "Organizations and companies" is listed. I claim that VetFran falls under this category. Specifically, the lead sentence of WP:ORGDEPTH is "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. " In the References section of the VetFran article are currently ten references to sources, one from Forbes magazine, and other independently verifiable sources and publications.
Finally, to accommodate the request to add additional notability to the article, I added a few more references to verifiable articles about VetFran programs. I added another reference to a Bizjournal article, and two other news articles, to add notability to the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeDeeWhistleblower (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC) — JoeDeeWhistleblower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm not convinced the subject (yet) passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes reference and the Pittsburgh Business Times reference are okay, though the first is focussed on a different program. But some of the others are rubbish and should be removed. References 8 - 13 don't really relate to the subject at all and are just being used to "verify" the content in the last (unrelated) paragraph which might almost be considered an "attack" on another program. This para and the associated "references" need to be removed. I might go ahead and do that just to save someone else the angst. References that cite the organisation's own website could not be considered independent and so don't really count towards WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. I really think we need one or two more references for this to make the grade. I will be bold and remove some of the links that don't really add anything at all to the article and then perhaps we can have a discussion about those that do. It's a close-run thing and we're not far from ticking the boxes (in my opinion). Stalwart111(talk) 04:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further - have had a crack at cleaning it up a bit and remain of the view that we need a couple more reliable sources for this to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Cheers, Stalwart111(talk) 04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unlikely that an initiative like this would be notable, and the article is written in spammy prose. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 19 October 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.