Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Republican Assembly

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

California Republican Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced, possible OR, fails NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with California State Assembly Republican Caucus, which seems to be more up to date on its content. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR. Completely un-sourced, and may have been one person's viewpoint of this organization. No way of telling. — Maile (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral comment This organization does not have any direct affiliation with the GOP Assembly Caucus and organizes the state party in general. Nate • (chatter) 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for mentioning that. I changed it.— Maile (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found numerous references in newspapers going back to the 1930s, but the ones I checked had limited depth. Allegedly there’s a book on the subject ([1]) but it’s not online. There’s a copy of Ronald Reagan’s speech to it, but arguably that’s not independent. Overall I couldn’t prove or disprove notability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2023 (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.