Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conference of European Directors of Roads

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conference of European Directors of Roads

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

I have prodded this with the following rationale 'The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Also, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. ', then I realized this was already prodded by User:Robert McClenon (rationale: No references except its own web site. No third-party evidence of notability.) and deprodded by author (WP:SPA). While some new refs were added, this is still primarily referenced to sources related to the organization itself or few other EU organizations, i.e. a form of WP:WALLEDGARDEN. In the end, as I noted in my prod rationale, this seems to fail notability and be nothing else than a YellowPages-like entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - When I tagged this article for speedy deletion, which was improperly removed by the author, it was a stub. When I tagged this article for PROD, which was properly removed by the author (because anyone may remove a PROD), it had no references other than its own web site. It has a few references other than its own web site. Just because an author is an SPA doesn't mean that their articles have to be deleted. The author has a right to be an SPA. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources are simply announcements and mentions and the information is no better than a guide, nothing amounting to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies have already been made for the 'improper' removal of the initial speedy deletion tag. The very first outline of the page was inadvertently saved at 15:29 and editing completed at 16:04. In the interval the speedy deletion tag was unintentionally overwritten. WP:NONPROFIT states that notability is justified by both an international dimension (ok) and multiple reliable independent sources (to be improved). As per WP:NOBLECAUSE on non-profits, mission etc will be deleted. It is proposed to strengthen the contributions in terms of research, road safety, climate change (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/publications/international_practices/page08.cfm) and ITS which have all been extensively referenced - e.g. CEDR on the National Academy's TRB data base https://trid.trb.org/Results?txtKeywords=cedr. Please WP:DONOTDEMOLISH whilst this is done. Thanks DAuderghem (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised there isn't more coverage of this organization. A Gnews search for the French title yields but one hit. @DAuderghem: Reliable sources do not have to be in English. So if you combine the best results in all European languages, you might be able to cobble together enough good strong sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a number of references now. This is a boring nonprofit organization, not seeking publicity, an umbrella/coordinating organization apparently. It exists. Wikipedia is great for covering boring stuff like this, providing the good function of being a reference on what the heck it is. --do ncr am 06:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly per Doncram. It can be proven to exist with references and holds a degree of notability, so no reason to delete. Rcsprinter¹²³ (lecture) 20:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What, this is still open? I argued "Keep" already above. Dis shud be closd. --do ncr am 18:07, 24 January 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.