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 as considerable time has passed and there has not been another path of comments other than Keep, therefore there is also the consideration of this being a national government agency therefore suggesting it would also be acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency

Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

An anonymous editor de-PRODded this article and inserted one reference to a directory-like source. The previous concern at PROD was: Fails WP:ORG after removal of promotional text mostly cited to press releases and organizers of a certain awards banquet. By the way, the creator has been indefinitely blocked as part of a probable paid promotional editing circle and CU confirmed sockmaster ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthalis). - Brianhe ( talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• leaning delete per nom and to discourage spammers. My only qualm is that it might have a suitable redirection point as a government owned corporation, if that is in fact the case - David Gerard ( talk) 12:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Discouraging spammers is not an acceptable reason for deletion. You could say it about pretty much any article. Protection is easy enough to apply if necessary. The only question relevant here is: is the subject notable? As a government agency, clearly it is. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I have removed the article's only source. "International Business Publications" sole line of work seems to be printing and selling Wikipedia articles (see WP:IBP). I have not examined this particular instance, but it is clearly not reliable source. At the moment, I have not examined this article in any other way and do not have an opinion as to keep/redirect/delete. - SummerPhD ^v2.0 22:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. We usually regard government agencies as notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a national government agency that custom and practice considers notable. Just Chilling ( talk) 18:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Necrothesp and Just Chilling: Usual practice is being severely tested in this case. It's a promotional article for a government promotion agency, the subject of promotion by multiple undisclosed paid editors, and part of a well known larger problem on WP around Cyprus banking/investment/gambling stuff. See COIN thread " Offshore trading companies, regulators and promotion agency", SPI #1, SPI #2, SPI #3 and Talk:Banc De Binary if in need of further background. A rational response to this is WP:TNT and salting to prevent further abuse of the community of GF editors, not to afford presumed notability due to precedent alone. - Brianhe ( talk) 22:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, utter rubbish. We are here to debate the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. Misusing AfD to try to get rid of poor articles is not acceptable practice. It's easy enough to cut out the poor edits (as has been done) and then protect the article if there are attempts to re-add them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. National government agency that gets coverage in reliable sources [1]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 02:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Patar knight: what reliable sources exactly? Maybe if you could point them out we could get to improving this thing. - Brianhe ( talk) 03:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Anything from the Cyprus Mail, [2] [3] [4] Cyprus Weekly, [5] [6] [7] and Financial Mirror, [8] should be fine. Cyprus Property News is likely okay too. [9]---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 04:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep I've had a similar experience while discussing the notability of an Iranian government bank. Sometimes, due to lack of sources, notability seems questionable. But the precedent in such cases (even if sources were not available) would lean towards keep. Like one of the editors mentioned above (albeit not in the language I would prefer), the question to be discussed here is not the quality of the article, but its notability worth. And the subject is notable, not least because of the sources shown above by Patar Knight. Lourdes 13:23, 19 October 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.