Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Association of Architects

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.  Sandstein  16:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Association of Architects (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH which states that an organisation is notable only if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". The few sources that exist are passing, trivial and routine. AusLondonder (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: On the face of it, a role in professional accreditation would provide a strong claim to notability. However I found this article from Architects Journal: "RIBA stops recognising Commonwealth Association of Architects schools". That said, there appears to be subsequent cooperation between the organisations, at least in running a student competition: [1]. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:NONPROFIT, it's an internationally active, recognised non-profit accreditation body (though as already pointed out, its standards and approach differ from the RIBA). It's also been active in this capacity for over 50 years (celebrating its golden jubilee in 2015). Sionk (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGSIG states "No company or organisation is considered inherently notable. No organisation is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organisation it is". The length an organisation has been operating also has zero bearing on notability. AusLondonder (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? I was arguing that the subject meets WP:NONPROFIT.Sionk (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article has been improved with additional sources such as Sri Lankan and UK press stories Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2017 (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.