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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITDM[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, inadequately sourced. Draft:Integrated Talent Development Mission is already in draft space in AFC (and has been declined). This submission to mainspace looks like an effort to try two different routes into mainspace at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is a blatant attempt to game the system. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The two existing sources have only a passing mention. It should probably also be salted as this is the four time the page has been recreated. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the coverage of the non-profit is minimal in substance. See e.g. this, this, this and this; these are the major hits returned by an WP:INDAFD search, but they are not actually about ITDM. Highbeam gives this, but again it really only offers a passing mention of ITDM. Given that I didn't find any substantive coverage of ITDM using other search tools, I believe the subject fails WP:ORG. /wiae /tlk 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a somewhat newly founded group with no signs of the needed notability. I myself saw this at NPP and watchlisted with plans to nominate. SwisterTwister talk 17:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searches did not turn up the kind of in-depth coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't fit WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have suspended the AFC review of Draft:Integrated Talent Development Mission pending the outcome of this AFD, it is basically the same article. Would a decision to delete here also extend to the Draftspace copy? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my opinion, no, this AFD does not apply to the draft, because GNG does not apply to the draft. I agree with suspending or declining review of the draft, because GNG does apply to accepting the draft, and the two are the same (which is a gaming of the system). That is, if this article is deleted, it does not imply that the draft should be MFD'd, but it does mean that the draft should not be accepted unless it can be made much better than the subject article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this process ends in deletion of the article, the draft would be subject to speedy deletion in terms of "G4: Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Author has already been asked whether they have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This organization is insufficiently notable, judging by the lack of media coverage. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (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.