Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Polygraph 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 speedy keep. Oh, please: let's not make ourselves look silly by using this kid of criterion for nominating articles for deletion. Oh, wait: we already have. Oops? —Phil | Talk 07:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Polygraph_Association

American Polygraph_Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable organization. ~ Wikihermit 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep for now. An organization with 2,500 members in a comparatively small field (probably a majority of practitioners in that field) could well be notable. Article needs work, most particularly citations. If expanded cited, article could reach encyclopedic status. --Nonstopdrivel 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment With further thought and reading, I have upgraded my recommendation to Keep. However, the article does need work; if there is no interest in maintaining it (no work on it within the next few months), I would support a subsequent AfD. --Nonstopdrivel 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment That's not a criterion for deletion, "no work on it within the next few months." I have a perfectly good article that I created that has never been considered for deletion and hardly any work has ever been done on it. It doesn't matter how much work is done on an article over what time frame--that's not a criterion for deletion any more than a personal point of view that it is about something non-notable. It isn't "could well be notable" the organization itself is the subject of multiple non-trival academic articles because of their controversial stance on a certain type of lie detector test--this is a field of academic study that already exists: investigating the reliability of this type of test and addressing within the broad field of criminal justice the implications of this being a test supported by this large North American association of polygraphers. And, no, I won't be bullied into researching and editing this article any more than this AfD already has. "No work within a few months" is not a criterion for deletion.KP Botany 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral and comment actually, the American Polygraphy Association website states that they have over 3,200 members [1]. IIRC, this is "the" body for polygraphers in the United States. And I believe they also set the generally accepted standards for polygraphers (at least, that's what I gathered from at least one major anti-polygraph site over a year ago.) I don't want to take on the cleanup of this, and sorry I can't source it better.
• Comment the website says 2,500 also [2]. Robbskey 13:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, if it is the professional body for American polygraph examiners I could see it being linked to by other articles. Cedars 02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is the major professional body, and perhaps Wikihermit could explain further why he thinks it non-notable. DGG 07:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Speedy Keep Let's cut the crap and move on to things that need done. Since when are articles deleted because of someone's personal point of view opinion about the subject of the article? Not even an attempt for a real nomination? The organization itself is the subject of research for their advocacy of and reliance upon the control question technique. KP Botany 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep here are a bunch of sources. I'll go through and figure out which are most appropriate to use in expanding the article. I'm beginning to think it should be a requirement to hit Google News Archive search before submitting something like this to AfD. JavaTenor 23:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It ought to be a requirement to look at something before proposing an AfD. KP Botany 23:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed completely, but how would you implement it?--for the AfD talk page.DGG 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pull the obvious didn't look at a damn thing nominations and admonish the nominators to cut it out. Yeah, for the AfD talk page, but there's a lot of spinning going on last time I was there. I don't know, maybe User:Wikihermit had a good reason for this nomination, but he didn't offer one in the nomination and hasn't answered any issues. Yes, I should WP:AGF, but I want a new Wikipedia Policy: Assume other folks value their time, and be considerate by doing just a few minutes work. An entry at google scholar would have pulled up multiple and various sources about this organization. Well, the article's pure crap, so someone may assume the subject is bogus, but I don't think that is the correct way to go about it. KP Botany 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Implementation and enforcement could be by Admins at first, but a bot could also be written that would automatically warn submitters of unsupported AfD's and subsequently delete them if appropriate action were not taken. --Nonstopdrivel 02:42, 18 June 2007 (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.