Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadwell Heath South Residents' Association


 * 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Chadwell Heath South Residents' Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing any notability, most of the sourcesare not about the organisation as far as I can tell. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Slatersteven. I have followed the progress of a number of English Residents' Associations. CHSRA's work appears more noteworthy than most other RAs, but perhaps that's subjective. Is there anything you would recommend I should do to improve the article? Best regards DrJonathanOsterman (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There need to be in depth third party coverage of them to establish notability, not really seeing any of that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a fairly new organisation, established in March 2017. Yet when comparing it with other English Residents' Association wikipedia pages, there's hardly much "in-depth" third party coverage on them either. Havering Residents Association for instance. I struggle to see how I can improve it further, but would appreciate your guidance. I have cited newspaper articles describing CHSRA's work. DrJonathanOsterman (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is all irrelevant, if it is too new to be notable it is too new for an article, and other stuff exists is not a valid keep argument (rather it is a valid argument to AFD those pages). Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Havering Residents Association seems to be most notable not for the standard activities of a residents' association, but because it also acts as a local political party. Its success at getting its members elected as councillors over a number of years has in turn had a profound effect on the local politics of the London Borough of Havering, making Havering politics very different from that of most other English local authorities. Consequently, one occasionally finds articles about Havering politics in non-local publications such as this one from The Guardian. And this kind of non-local coverage contributes strongly to Wikipedia notability, while purely local coverage scarcely contributes at all to notability. Chadwell Heath South Residents' Association seems to be an exemplary residents' association, getting a lot of favourable local publicity - but, being local, this unfortunately does not contribute to Wikipedia notability. PWilkinson (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that there are hardly any citations, to show this, on the page of Havering Residents' Association; thus meaning that a non-local reader would have no idea of its notoriety, on non-local publications such as The Guardian, unless they carried out independent research. I'm not disputing Havering RA's credibility, far from it. Yet it seems that, for you, a Residents' Association is only deemed notable, on Wikipedia, if it is POLITICAL. Reigate and Banstead Residents Association, Merton Park Ward Residents Association and Old Windsor Residents' Association are further examples of pages that do not explore organisations in-depth, or appear to be written by active members, and arguably don't have much notability by your standards either. No other editors appear to follow my viewpoint, so I leave it to you. The CHSRA logo has already been removed, so you can do what you wish with the article. I'm sure in years to come someone will come back and try again, with a better article; hopefully by then you'll be satisfied with CHSRA's notability. All the best DrJonathanOsterman (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree many of these do fail notability they all seem to actually be political parties, so they are not quote analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Non notable residents organisation. Created by a spa with ref bombing. The refs where they mention the organisation are social media, otherwise they aren't related. Szzuk (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 13:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, for clarity there are 3 delete votes in this afd, myself, the nom and user PWilkinson who has said this article is not notable (without explicitly voting), there is one keep vote from the article creator an spa and likely coi. Szzuk (talk) 20:41, 19 April 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.