Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees


 * 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. Withdrawn. Refs have also been added to the article during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant coverage and the article is unsourced. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Organisation is defunct, but was significant while it existed as the central co-ordinating and representative body for probation services in England and Wales. I have added a reference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Was very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why should readers take someone's word for it that it was notable? SL93 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take a genius to conclude that the co-ordinating and representative body for probation services for the whole of England and Wales might be notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So you’re basically calling me stupid...How nice of an admin. SL93 (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's a turn of phrase. You were asking why we should "take someone's word for it that it was notable". I was pointing out why it wasn't just "someone's word" but common sense given the status of the organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Some readers may know something about the subject. There is certainly literature about it, but it is in the archives, not online.  see http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3354717.  There is also more in the Probation Journal, but it is behind a paywall.  The fact that at least one Chairman was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire is sufficient evidence of notability.  Rathfelder (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - This organisation has a big notority in UK. SaraLiX5 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdraw: I was originally planning to withdraw this until I saw Necrothesp's comment. I was going to let this play out because of that comment, but I changed my mind. I withdraw this nomination. SL93 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2018 (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.