Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D&AD

:{{la|D&AD}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|D&AD}})

Appears to be a non-notable charity (fails WP:ORG...specifically WP:NONPROFIT). I can find no significant, secondary source coverage of D&AD [http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#q=Design+and+Art+Direction+awards&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bc02633c423ba5e4&hl=en&safe=active on Google], and the only links the article provides are D&AD's website. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 17:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 17:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, The D&AD awards are a very well established competition and with a woldwide reputation in the design industry. Google books shows many potential sources, such as [http://books.google.com/books?id=gz6y_hpj6FEC&pg=PA128&dq=about+the+D%26AD+awards&hl=en&ei=nIuwTeGIF6nR4wah16TsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=about%20the%20D%26AD%20awards&f=false] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=cBaSAAAAIAAJ&q=D%26AD&dq=D%26AD&hl=en&ei=b4ywTdXKJsrW4wbrqMCUDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCTgU]. -France3470 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Just to make sure, you do know that I'm nominating this article about the charity organization as non-notable. The awards I could find plenty of sources for...it's the charity behind them, which this article is about, that I think has not received the required significant, secondary source coverage. I would honestly have no problem with someone creating the article D&AD Awards (which is currently redlinked in the D&AD article)...I just think that the D&AD charity fails WP:ORG. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes, sorry I meant to add that the awards certainly outshine the charity in terms of notable. However, after considerable searching of my own, I too find a serious lack of sources. (Which admitttedly has me rather dumbfounded.) I still feel though that there should be enough sources for at least a stub. These sources might do the trick, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jaJBEsWG_fkC&pg=PA34&dq=D%26AD+1962&hl=en&ei=gZqwTcG1GovQsgbz28zyCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=D%26AD%201962&f=false], [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N0Ur5P8KyRUC&pg=PA172&dq=D%26AD+1962&hl=en&ei=gZqwTcG1GovQsgbz28zyCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=D%26AD%201962&f=false]. -France3470 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

::::I still think the best place for what information can be referenced about the charity would be better placed in a section of the "D&AD Awards" article rather than this article. In my opinion, this mostly comes down to the charity's not being notable enough to warrant its own article. At the least I would delete this article, salvage any content that can be referenced, put it into hopefully a newly created article about the D&AD Awards, and then create a redirect at this title. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The article covers both the organisation and its awards. Sources are easy to find: here's another [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2oRsdP--e70C&pg=PA178 example]. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Move to D&AD Awards, which seems to be what is notable, and rewrite accordingly.  Sandstein  06:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.