Talk:World Association of Detectives

message: The reference used to remove the notability tag is a self-published autobiography (Trafford Publishing works with self-published authors for a fee). In his autobiography the author promotes the association, stating he is a member, but he gives no clue as to how he determined it is the "largest international association in the world.", just a look at WAD's list of members will tell you it's not. Please leave the notability tag in place unless you can find a valid reference. PeetMoss (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the edit summary when I removed the notability tag Google News Archive and Google Books searches show obvious notability. Most of the news results are behind paywalls but it is clear from the snippets displayed by Google that the affairs of this organisation such as meetings and elections of officials have received substantial coverage in publications such as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Indian Express etc., easily satisfying the requirements of the notability guideline, and unnotable topics don't get written about in over 200 books. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found one article. A New York Times piece where the reporter quoted the President of WAD ("Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.). The rest of the links on Google appear to go to paid and free listings in directories and company web sites.   PeetMoss (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you can't have looked at the Google News Archive search that I linked above. Just looking at the New York Times results  there are articles reporting meetings of this organisation in 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932, 1933, and 1935.
An obituary and short quip in an online China blog are considered valid references??PeetMoss (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, an obituary in the Washington Post is just as valid as any other article in that newspaper, and the China Daily reference is a newspaper article, not a blog. They provide verification of facts in this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, but I'll leave it be unless someone else complains. Side remarks about WAD in an obituary and a so-called online newspaper in China are not valid per WP guidelines the way I read it. PeetMoss (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly it's not a "so-called online newspaper", it's a print newspaper with a circulation of 200,000, which you would have seen if you had bothered to follow the link I provided. And the notability doesn't just rest on those sources, but on all of the others which I also linked to above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the other sources? You posted a link to an obituary and a Chinese newspaper. None of the references given substantiate the facts posted in this article, it's hearsay at best. Anyone would expect to find a lot more then that if WAD was the oldest and largest association. PeetMoss (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all the other sources linked via the searches that I linked above show notability. Why are you being so obtuse? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because I have no clue what "all the other sources linked via the searches" means. All I see is an obituary, a Chinese newspaper and a self published autobiography. None of which make WAD the subject of their articles or substantiate the facts posted in this article. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree and wait for another editor to review the references. PeetMoss (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Where did the text in "WAD Promotes" come from? Some of it I see on the website but the majority of it looks like someone made it up. PeetMoss (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAD Promotes