Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alf's Imperial Army


 * 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 Keep both. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alf's Imperial Army and McGillicuddy Highland Army
These articles appear to be about a hobby reenactment club, but are rather lacking in sourcing other than from their members' home pages. This would appear not to be a notable organization. Perhaps one of the Wikias is a better location.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I have added references to the McGillicuddy Highland Army page, I think these should prove their notability. PavillonE (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for Alf's; keep for McGillicuddys. Should be very easy to find other sources - these are indeed "hobby reenactment groups", but ones with a very high profile in NZ, especially Alf's. Articles definitely need a rewrite, but they don't need deletion. Grutness...wha?  23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   —Grutness...wha?  23:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both The short version: lack of outside sources => lack of notability. Is there a claim of notability in the article? Why/how is the group notable? What outside sources do we have to back up those claims of notability? -- Swerdnaneb 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the article for AIA makes clear claims of notability, which I presume will shortly be sourced, and the MHA are referenced under under McGillicuddy articles (not a plea that this is no worse than others, but one that this is an adjunct to established articles) -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Could you please help me out with one example? I just don't see it. I'm not asking for a claim of notability that is sourced (or source-able). Just a claim of notability. -- Swerdnaneb 15:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the opening paragraph to make one or two of its claims to notability a bit clearer. Grutness...wha?  00:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Well-known NZ organisations. Will provide newspaper citation etc if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.   — FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very well know and important. The McGillicuddy Serious Party even got 0.61% of all votes cast in the 1993 general election. - SimonLyall (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for Alf's; strong keep for McGillicuddys. These should be kept, they are both well-known organisations in NZ with a very-high public profile. I have given sources from newspaper articles to support all the claims about battling a wide range of NZ groups, and to support Alf's notabliity. I will do the same for the McGHA, when I have time. PavillonE —Preceding comment was added at 09:04, 9 December 2007 (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.