Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Webcasting Association

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. Mkdw ^talk 01:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Webcasting Association (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)

No working references. Doesnt seem to exist any more. Was it notable? Rathfelder (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, maybe even speedy as a mix of copyvio and promo. Page started off as a straight copy paste from their then website, copyright 2003 [1]. Only significant additions since then have been pure PR straight from the org, eg."goal is to keep our members" [2] (wouldn't be surprised if it was also copyvio). Even if they are notable the entire history should be removed so best to delete and allow someone independent to start again if they are notable (far from convinced). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Some coverage found: [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A primary-sourced article whose content following the WP:SPA changes in August 2006 is typical of the About and Membership benefits sections on a website. The several items of book coverage mentioned above do not rise above passing mentions and listings. While evidence can be found of acting as an industry lobby group (e.g. 2000 submission), I agree with duffbeerforme's comments and anyway do not see the coverage about the IWA needed to demonstrate WP:ORGDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - From my source searches, I have found nothing except for mentions in directories or a passing mention to an awards ceremony it used to co-host that does not seem to have received any secondary coverage. If you host an awards show and no one shows up, I think it's tough to argue that your notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Isingness (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2018 (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.