Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Professionals of America

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 Keep contingent on rewrite. —Centrx→talk • 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business Professionals of America

This entry fails WP:ORG. It is also written in an ad-like tone. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, it is not written very well at the moment, but "Business Professionals of America" does get about 90,000 google hits. They have chapters in many high schools across the USA and have local/state/national competitions, much like DECA (who have an article). And WP:ORG is a proposal as well. Renosecond 15:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As much as I hate BPA, I'll have to agree with Renosecond; it is an organization not much less notable than DECA. DECA notability is just harder to guage because it is referred to by nothing but its acronym, which is quite ambiguous (See DeCA). Zarel 20:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally the "X is as notable as Y, which has an article" is not a very strong argument for a keep. I have looked at the DECA article and it has issues of its own, firstly, copyright violation and second, it also fails the requirement of WP:ORG which states, "information can be verified by a third party source" and "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject".--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm trying to find sources for this article of the non-trivial nature from a third party source and I can't seem to find any from a larger type news organization. Most of it seems to be about local chapters of BPA, but not the entire organization. I wonder if any coverage does exist. The same problem seems to exist for DECA, FBLA, and the like. I'm withholding judgement of the article for now. Metros232 22:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Definately. It's notable and needs an article.. --DjSamwise 04:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.