Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALBOAN

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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Two of the Keep !votes were largely discounted as their arguments are inconsistent with WP:PAG. However that leaves us with only one comment supporting deletion besides the OP and one Keep that looks weak but not enough to discount. Alas the discussion has been relisted twice. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ALBOAN (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)

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I suggest that its widespread works and importance to the Basque nation make this a notable organization. Jzsj (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You've been around more than long enough to know that social relevance is not a criteria for inclusion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The works seem to me to have sufficient independent coverage. Jzsj (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• When you skip the section "look how good we are", you are left with just the lead with six sources. That is to say: one dead link, an irrelevant link, a passing mention, a related source, a "yes, we have a party and someone is speaking at that party", idem. No in-depth coverage. The Banner talk 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is essentially a religious spam article, cobbled together from many passing and minor mentions of the organization. When I do a Google search for news and book sources, the results do not substantiate GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It seems to me that it is doing enough to be a notable organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but We do not judge notability based on a subjective feel for the organization: we judge based on reporting in reliable sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it has a large number of third party sources. If you feel there is spam in the article, you take it out, not delete the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without the spam, there is hardly an article left. The Banner talk 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is fine, go ahead and stub-ify it for us.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (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.