Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Whats new?(talk) 23:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article relies solely on primary references. The conference is mentioned in reliable sources, but minimal in depth coverage to establish notability or verifiability. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per Category:Bishops conferences. Google Books, Google News, etc. all have plenty of in depth sourcing. There have been major Australian legal cases involving them, oh, and yes, every Catholic bishops conference on the planet more than meets GNG in sourcing either from the Catholic press (which, do count for notability) or the local press in their own country. I highly suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a national organization of a major religion. I see plenty of RS coverage in quick perusals of the Find Sources template. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mentions yes, but most of what I saw was mentions of the Conference or quotes about or from it. I'd like to see some sources that establish notability. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. A strange nomination; reliance on primary sources is not a reason for deletion if the subject is covered in secondary sources (which this one certainly is). StAnselm (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for obvious reasons mentioned. Perhaps the nominaror us not initiated in the subject to be aware of its notability. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom is mistaken, but it appears that this is a good-faith nomination.  Any of us can make such an error as bringing this to AfD (I saw an AfD recently where someone wanted to delete a Diocese in Italy with a similar justification) when we stumble into a field that we know nothing about and find an article that appears to us to be self sourced.  Next editor to swing by should just close it.  Or User:Whats new? could do so.


 * 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.