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. So Why 18:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Associated Locksmiths of America

Associated Locksmiths of America (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines and (much like the also up for deletion Master Locksmiths Association) is promotional in nature, serving to only list the organization's offerings. No independent reliable sources that indicate notability are offered, the offered sources being what seem to be spam websites or how-to pages, without indicating how this organization itself is notable. 331dot ( talk) 13:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I would want to see a lot more robust, independent sourcing before I was sure that this is a WP:NOTABLE trade body. It's very easy to start a trade association, but is this the important one for the US? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep OK, given recent work, I'm happy that this stands up as the trade association, not merely a trade association. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Organisation has many notable sources:

NBC http://www.nbc-2.com/story/34018402/locksmith-scam-targeting-vulnerable-residents AARP http://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-06-2012/locksmith-scams-on-the-rise.html

-- Key lock01011 ( talk) 13:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Key lock01011: Those are just name drops that don't go into how the organization itself is notable. Is there a reason (as Andy Dingley alludes to) that this organization is considered an authority on locksmithing or otherwise a notable trade association? Name drops and the sources in the article currently don't do that. The article itself would also need to be drastically rewritten, to the point where I think it would be better to just start fresh. 331dot ( talk) 13:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

-- 331dot If your going to stay "Those are just name drops" that could be said for 99% of articles on wikipedia. Why don't you delete this article National Safemans Organization and [ [1]] etc...

@ Key lock01011: So you have read 99% of the over 5 million articles on the English language Wikipedia to know that? Most articles on Wikipedia go into how the subject itself is notable. Merely being mentioned in consumer stories about locksmith scams means little in terms of notability. The notability guidelines for organizations state "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" and that articles have deep coverage which "provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." The sources given do not do that. Why is this organization notable? Do they have a long history documented in independent sources? Have they influenced laws or policies? Things like that. The page right now just states "they exist and this is what they do". We need more. 331dot ( talk) 14:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Those are the sorts of source I would expect to see. Are those sources robust in themselves? Do they give significant coverage to the ALOA? I'm looking for things on the lines of, "The Better Business Bureau says that the way to avoid a cowboy locksmith is to check for ALOA rregistration". Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

As to the Safeman's Organization, then how does that stand with the ALOA? Is there an overlap? Which would be seen as more credible? Here in the UK, locksmiths deal with safes too. Of course, a small town retail locksmith only does domestic jewellery safes rather than bankvaults, but there's still a broad overall sense of being the same trade. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No reliable, independent sources of any substance. Use "bruneiorthopaedics.com" and trivial passing mentions suggests attempted Wikipedia:Bombardment. Grayfell ( talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This trade association seems to have been organized in 1955. The earliest reference I am finding on Newspapers.com is to an article from Jan. 1956. I gay-ron-tee that a professional trade association has had multiple independent sources published about it and its activities in more than six decades! Carrite ( talk) 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Carrite: In which case we should start from scratch, instead of the promotional piece we have now. 331dot ( talk) 15:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I stripped away some of the most crufty stuff and put it into a more standard WP form. I'm in the middle of a busy weekend but will try to toy with it a little; I don't have any doubt that the sources are out there, given 60 annual conventions, most of which probably drew some sort of newspaper coverage. Carrite ( talk) 02:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Newspapers.com is showing over 1200 hits for the exact phrase "Associated Locksmiths of America." It's just a matter of digging. This is a legit, long-running trade association. Carrite ( talk) 02:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep I just checked Factiva, and this org has 39 article mentions on there, in various newspapers. Has been wound for around 60 years, and has been running a national convention for the trade for nearly that long. I assume this is the national US body for locksmiths, so that would go towards making it credible. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 07:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I've been dinking around with the early history of the group and it has been thoroughly decommericalized. There are dozens or hundreds of newspapers articles that can be mined. As for something concrete that can be counted towards GNG, see for example THIS from the 1984 US Commerce Department publication, Standards Activities of Organizations in the United States, which deals with ALOA in a substantial way on pp. 113-114. Carrite ( talk) 12:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep seems passing WP:GNG should not be an issue for such a long-lasting trade association. Now that most fluff was removed I see no reason it should be deleted. -- Muhandes ( talk) 20:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Article has been extensively reworked and cites various independent reliable sources. This is clearly a notable organization. — BarrelProof ( talk) 04:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Those keeping score and needing to see another source that unquestionably counts towards GNG are called to the attention of THIS 1973 AP wire report on the AOLA moving its headquarters from Kingston, NY to Dallas. Carrite ( talk) 12:36, 17 July 2017 (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.