Talk:Pacific Telecommunications Council

Notability

When creating this article, I noticed it had previously been deleted as someone had apparently just copied and pasted a blurb at some point from the organization itself — although the deletion discussion overwhelmingly recognized the organization is more than sufficiently notable in its field. I've tried to create a rough-but-sourced article, but it is admittedly a stub. Hopefully will have some time to expand it further eventually (or, hopefully even more so, someone beats me to it). NapaCaGuy (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Advert + Notability

Article is likely non-notable and has puffery, will AfD soon. VickKiang (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Aloha Vick. Although I live in Hawaiʻi, I don't work directly nor indirectly for PTC, which I feel I should clarify given your tagged concerns around the article being an advert/not objective. I have attended their conference twice as I work in this industry. About the only piece of puffery or peacock language I was able to identify from my original draft was around the regional/industry impact of its annual conference, which I attempted to paraphrase from the Honolulu Advertiser article (which later merged with the Star-Bulletin to create the daily newspaper here). Instead, I'm more directly using the "largest" verbiage (similar to what is used in the GSMA article) from that source and others, and I've tried to streamline all of the language throughout the article to stick solely to its facts (similarly to the CTIA article).

Insofar as notability, the multiple references cited clearly indicate it has had a long-term effect on its industry internationally sufficient to meet WP:ORG and has held a large and widely covered annual conference for over four decades that I think clearly meets WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:LASTING.

As noted in its prior deletion discussion (where it was deleted due to being a copyvio and not on other merits), it has had decades of coverage WP:DEPTH from reliable sources (both trade and otherwise) — and the consensus in that conversation was that it was a clearly notable organization (not least because of its ~1,210 Google Scholar references and ~445 newspaper archive search results dating back to 1980 in at least one tool I just checked.

I hope my edits to the article just now and my clarifications above help ameliorate some of your concerns. While I recognize the article is very much a stub, I do believe it is written and comes across objectively (having slept on it, noticed your concerns, re-read, and edited some again today) and not like an advertisement — but if you have specific concerns remaining, I hope you'll share so that I can work on them. Mahalo! NapaCaGuy (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is well explained but we might need to agree to disagree. I didn't imply that you have a COI, in fact, there are far worse drafts. However, this article applies to the organisation. If we're creating another article for the conference, then WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:LASTING are relevant, but it isn't applicable as this article need to meet WP:NORG rather than WP:NEVENT. Let's consider notability- it's inadequate to assume notability based on quantity. If you could provide me with two in-depth secondary reliable independent refs, I'd be convinced. But NORG states Quantity does not determine significance. But almost all of the Scholar refs are their own conference PDFs (non-independent). On Newspapers.com, the refs I found are sadly trivial/routine, 1, 2, 3 from minor local newspapers. Therefore, IMHO asserting the quantities is insufficient, we need concrete refs. VickKiang (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)