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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not appear to be fit for an encyclopaedia article and seems to serve advertising purposes.Lancet (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Lancet (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so, I suggest you point out the lack of notability or other criteria that are lacking, in your opinion. I remind you that in the discussion of the XBRL page, you agreed with me that the creation of an XBRL International page would solve some of your objections with the content of that page. In creating this page, I've tried to create content that meets Wikipedia guidelines (which I read prior to starting the page). For example, if we compare HL7 and XBRL, there are many parallels in terms of the organisations and their scope of standards making, their size, and their impact on the lives of non-members through the subject of their standards making. As a general guide to notability, I think they are both notable. At least as notable as the Knights of the Southern Cross (New Zealand). I have nothing against any member organisation of the International Alliance of Catholic Knights, but if you have objections to this page under the guidelines of Wikipedia, please show how they apply to XII and not to KSCNZ.

Please also point out what specifically you think is "advertising". This page is patterned directly on the page for the W3C, which I thought was the most relevant starting point. I noticed that the W3C page does not mention its regular conferences, and I would also be leery of adding mentions of conferences to the XII page.

I think the most telling criticism of this page is that it is a stub, and needs expanding. If you want to add Criticisms - go for it! Want to add content about fees (a subject you feel strongly about), just add it! Unhappy about the dominance of large organisations like PricewaterhouseCoopers? Find a good reference that supports your prejudice and add it! Just keep to the same NPOV you like to apply to everyone else... Dvunkannon (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter. I'm looking forward to what other editors may contribute. Lancet (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs to be kept. The subject is definitely relevant, especially since the SEC has released the roadmap to its mandatory use by 2014. I think an important thing to know about XBRL is who is responsible for the standard. The article itself needs work for sure, but the subject definitely belongs. --Glennfcowan (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless cleaned up with proper evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with XBRL. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Vrefron (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonnotable, promotional article. Any useful content should be merged in with XBRL, but as far as I can tell only minimal content would need to be added. Themfromspace (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the recently improved (current) version? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did Jerry, it's improved. Though the Mission section's content still seems promotional. Cheers, Lancet (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the recent work has made it less biased. I think the problem with business articles is that telling what they do is kind of like advertising, so they need to be written carefully. I agree that the mission section seems a little overdone and seems to be covered in the history section. I think the two areas could be merged and that one or more of the quotes should be dropped. Glennfcowan (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with dropping the quotes is if you then drop the reference sources as well. Somebody can then come along and say "there's no sources...blah blah blah...". As it is, the quotes are referenced by solid reliable third-party sources. If you delete the quotes while this is still at AFD, please find a way to keep the sources. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - needs some cleanup but that's not grounds for deletion -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important subject matter.Can be cleaned up, but keep. Good info.(69.231.71.13 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep notable subject, encyclopedic content, neutral point of view, verifiable content, sourced to independent reliable third party sources. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:47, 12 September 2008 (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.