Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civitatis International

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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civitatis International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Despite a recent debacle of a recent article of the company charging for job references,WP:ONEEVENT WP:NOTNEWS. I cannot find any further independent published reliable sources for the company to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Grauniad and HuffPost have mentioned them, in relation to the intern issue. That issue, critical though the coverage is, should also be restored. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also they seem to be taken seriously by the UK government, in that they're invited to provide written submissions to select committees: [1] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability is established, no actions taken by this organization described, nothing at all to indicate its actual purpose. If this article were improved, then I might change my opinion. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the "article for deletion" tag has been deleted by a SPA who has already been busy deleting the article's only referenced content. The three-revert rule deters me from restoring it. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of AfD tags is an obvious vandalism, exempt under Wikipedia:3RRNO §4. They're also a fairly obvious sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't seem to have received sufficient lasting attention to pass the notability guideline. I searched for coverage and can find very little before the recent news story, which isn't enough for notability by itself. The earlier version of the article made stronger claims to notability[2] - it has apparently been associated with some notable people and organisations - but there remains a lack of reliable sources to back up anything in the article. Robofish (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the reason that Andy Dingly has stated above. Several news mentions and the UK government angle. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on WordSeventeen view above. I agree if we can find a citation for the "government angle". But I have failed to find anything except in Civitatis's own material. Maproom (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The governmental angle is covered at this diff which was listed above. For your convenience: [3] WordSeventeen (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also more info re govt uk connection here: [4] WordSeventeen (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a tough call on this one, but I'm going to go with keep since it appears as though they have gained some notability through being used by the government. The recent mess over the internship also gives them some credence, so that's a plus as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2015 (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.