Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older people's associations

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 no consensus. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate. The only consensus that I can discern is that the article needs significant work. No prejudice against taking this to AfD again if improvement (and good sources!) is not forthcoming in, say, another 6 months. Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Older people's associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Lacking useful content Rathfelder (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination gives an argument for expansion, not deletion. As an example of the topic's potential and notability, see this WHO report. Andrew D. (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too generic, too broad, and "this needs to be expanded" is not a valid argument against deletion. If there really exists enough material to create an article (I personally doubt it) then the article can always be re-created with such content. Amsgearing (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added in referenced mention of two different nations that created these. It can be expanded. They may be called something else in some nations. Dream Focus 03:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only content here concerns specific associations/projects/programs, rather than about a broader concept called "older people's associations". Extrapolating the definition based on a couple examples, without in-depth coverage of the subject on its own seems more like OR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The expansion shows why the article in misconceived. There are many different older people's organisations, all different depending on context. The fact that they are called Older people's associations doesn't mean they have anything in common. These bits should be in articles relating to Cambodia and Sierra Leone. Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confused because the title is in lower-case suggesting a general concept, while the bolded first sentence is an upper-case proper-noun eg. a specific named corporate entity such as an NGO or GO. Which is the article about? -- GreenC 14:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GreenC: The article was not created by an experienced editor and so the formatting of the case is not significant. That editor also created an article about a specific NGO -- HelpAge International -- which is active in this field and my impression is that the term "older people's association" is commonly used by such international organisations to refer in a general way to self-help associations of older people, which exist in many countries. The scale of these can be quite huge -- the WHO source indicates that China has about half a million such associations. As different countries will handle this in different ways, this is a broad concept. Our guidance is that, while such articles can be difficult to write, we should still have them. WP:BROADCONCEPT gives examples such as supreme court or ministry of finance. The particulars of these will vary from country to country but there's clearly an overall concept which is sensible for an encyclopedia to summarise. For a comparable example in the age field, consider youth club. That's a well-understood concept in the UK but the link now redirects to youth center, because someone moved it to a supposedly more general term. Whatever you call it, there's clearly a similar need for pages describing the general concept of a youth organisation. The same applies to organisations of older people. Andrew D. (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears HelpAge International invented the term and concept in 1998 in Cambodia (just added to article). With their help it has spread, but it's not HAI-specific as other NGOs have started OPAs (Sierra Leone) and countries have adopted the model and run it themselves. -- GreenC 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are 10s if not 100s of millions of people in OPAs, mostly in Asia though the model appears to be spreading to other countries. There are plenty of reliable sources, notability is not a problem, I added some but there are plenty more. Rhododendrites is incorrect about no sources that discuss it as a whole. That argument also contradicts Amsgearing who says it is 'too generic and broad' - which is it, too specific or to generic? We have sources that discuss both big picture, and specific. The assertion that they have 'nothing in common' is incorrect as sources show they are discussed as a group and given a common name (OPA) - they are different in local aspects to remain flexible to local needs but they are similar in other aspects. If the country-specific sub-sections get long enough they can be split off to separate articles but doesn't make sense to do it yet. -- GreenC 14:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems to be a niche or fringe concept, but worse: It contains no real meat, and has been a stub for over 10 years.
  Should someone some day, within next century or so, find something making the article worth reading, then it can be created at that time. -- DexterPointy (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If we want an article addressing the concept broadly should it not be called Seniors' organizations in line with the category? Rathfelder (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I know there's no deadlines, but a 10-year old stub about a vague topic like this really doesn't make sense. If somebody steps up to say they want to work on it, I wouldn't have any objection to moving it to draft space, but only if it finds a sponsor. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to HelpAge International, as the group which introduced the term and seems to be involved with most if not all of the online mentions of the term. I wouldn't be opposed to a pure delete either - it's very close. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RoySmith's rationale. A redirect would just creat confusion and a future, useless discussion for this very vague topic. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a vague topic to me, but I did read all the sources about it online. It's basically just an open source version of the AARP exported to third world countries and China, with individual customizations on a per country basis. Lots of institutional ideas from the West have been exported this way, how developing countries become developed quickly without having to reinvent the wheel. -- GreenC 21:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The article needs expansion for sure, but there should be a chance for expansion before deletion. I say revisit a 2nd nomination for deletion in 1-2 months because the article itself is a good start to a potentially necessary article. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term has stuck, per sources, and notability exists, albeit somewhat scarce. The words in the title should be written in initials, as is the case with most organizations, e.g. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries . The text needs reworking but this is no reason to delete the article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2018 (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.