The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization. Prior PROD (with reason: "Non-notable organization. No significant coverage in Google news. Google web finds only the organizations site and various listings of the organization.") removed by IP editor who removed much promotional material from the article, but did nothing to actually assert any notability for the organization. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to claim that the Contractors article is bad. In fact, for the reasons you pointed out, Contractors deserves to be rightly placed on Wiki. Rather, I was comparing one article that is rightly placed (contractors) to another that should be rightly placed (Communicators). Your argument assumes that a professional association with more members deserves more notability than another professional association with less. However, your original argument for not placing the Communicator's article was that "no reliable sources can be found to verify that". So which is it? If it is the prior, how many members does it take to become notable? If it is the latter than I ask for you to reconsider the sources given.
Definition of a reliable source on Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles[2] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
Let's begin with the first source: U.S. Geological Survey - third-party (yes) - published (yes - newsletter) - credible published materials (yes - USGS is a Federal Government Agency that has existed since 1879) - author generally regarded to as trustworthy (no evidence that they aren't)
We are trying very hard to provide you with the information you need to make Communicators an article on Wikipedia. If this most recent entry still does not provide you with enough evidence then please respond with exactly what you need from us. Wikipedia was not intended to block legitimate professional organizations from claiming their existence. Nor was it created to make the qualification process subjective to another user. I believe we can find a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuajfolk (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]