Deletion of Triple Nine Society

Comment: I don't see how this group could pass the  guidelines. The article tells us that this is a club with 650 members. There are no gnews hits, one plausible scholar hit (a letter to the editor in ''American Statistician'', but I don't have JSTOR access so I can't say exactly what it is). There's nothing resembling a newspaper or magazine of any sort in the first 3 pages of ghits. Given the nature of the membership I'm not convinced that 310 unique/654 total non-encyclopedia ghits is a great many. The article itself is a (non-copyvio) paraphrase of the society's home page, and in that limited sense is verifiable - it's what they say about themselves
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: so if you don't care for , and yes, its a guideline, let's go with policy: |verifiability and |neutral point of view. Verifiable ? Not beyond the bare fact of its existence. Neutral point of view ? Not achieved by quoting PR
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: The article might be expanded, but why the heck delete it? Besides,  is merely a proposal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: As  explains, articles are not merely deleted, but are speedily deleted, for failure to claim or imply notability (CSD A7). The whole purpose of guidelines such as  and  is to determine whether the subject persons or groups are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, for which notability is merely a shorthand. As  says, it is a "test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:BIO||WP:ORG||WP:NN)