Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CILEx London Branch


 * 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   redirect to Institute of Legal Executives . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

CILEx London Branch

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Seems a very clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED Branches or Sub-Groups of notable organisations are not notable in themselves unless there is some independent reliable sourcing that discussed the branch in some detail. I'm seeing lots of self-publicity in google but not so much independent coverage. Spartaz Humbug! 09:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete All mentions (outside ClLEx's own website) of the London branch that I could find after ten minutes of Googling were just passing mentions, mostly from social networkng sites. I would expect a notable present-day organisation to appear in Google results. Also, none of the references supplied are independent of CILEx. Hence fails WP:GNG.—A bit iffy (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * delete no evidence to meet WP:GNG as a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Institute of Legal Executives (possibly just plain redirect). That body has a Royal Charter and is clearly a notable professional body.  However, I do not think that the London (or any other) branch is likely to be separately notable.  The target article may need to be renamed as a result of its achieving chatered status.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge per Peterkingiron as best solution. Agree that the branch doesn't merit a separate article. DocTree (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2012 (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.