Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chamber of Co-operation


 * 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   merge to Corporate chambers (Estonia).  Sandstein  06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Chamber of Co-operation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article fails the criteria set out in WP:ORG, which states that an organisation of this nature is notable if it has had significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. A quick Google search throws up nothing even remotely relevant (the first listing is for the 'Chamber of Commerce and Industry' - remember, this is the 'co-operation chamber') in the first three pages of results. Therefore, the article has not received significant coverage in any source, let alone one reliable and independent of the subject! JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. I'm in no position to judge the sources found by Google News other than to note that there are three of 'em.  But et:Ühistegevuskoda exists, and mentions the dates 1936-1940, which seems to make that article about something else entirely. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, this AfD should deal with all the 12 similar articles created by User:Numbriga kärumees - currently some have been tagged with prod template, one is discussed here. Secondly, per WP:GOOGLE, 'Search engines cannot: Guarantee that little mentioned or unmentioned items are automatically unimportant.' All the 12 articles are about Estonian corporative insitutions mostly formed during the Era of Silence under authoritarian president Päts. There isn't much information about them in the web, even more in English, but as a whole they're probably notable as they were one of the characterizing features of Estonian economic policy at the time. They are mentioned for example in and . Therefore I propose to merge all 12 articles. The title should be discussed, but something like 'Corporate chambers (Estonia)' or 'Corporative chambers (Estonia)' should be ok. K731 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget though, that if an article doesn't have much coverage, it almost certainly fails the general notability guideline. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One shouldn't expect to find wide coverage (in English language and readily available in the web) of an element of Estonian economic policy in the second half of 1930s. I'm not advocating that all the articles should be kept, but instead that they could be merged into one article about the phenomenon in general. One more English language source mentioning the chambers: . K731 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However, we still must remember the general notability guideline. If it hasn't got significant coverage, we can't consider it to be notable. JulieSpaulding (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge all twelve articles. On their own, they have no notability, but all together with an introductory text they could be a part of article series on Estonian pre-WWII government. If the merge proposition fails, delete - useless non-noteworthy stub. -- Sander Säde 14:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Estonian article has several sources, and a Google Books search for the Estonian name finds more. I can't read Estonian, but it's pretty clear that this has significant coverage, this allows us to source the date of the decree establishing this chamber, this confirms the name of its chairman, this confirms the dates of its existence and this has two pages of coverage. This series of articles is about various national institutions. If they were about similar institutions in, say, Ireland would we even be considering for a moment deleting the articles or merging them into one wishy-washy general article? There's no reason why they shouldn't exist as separate stub articles which encourages the addition of encyclopedic content much more than hiding them away by merging them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact all the institution were pretty similar. I created a new article - Corporate chambers (Estonia), I hope it explains the background. K731 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with K731. Since they are all incredibly similar, there's not really a reason not to merge. In addition, we would not be 'hiding' the content of the stubs by merging the articles. If anyone navigates to say, Chamber of Co-operation, they will be redirected to a more comprehensive and notable article which avoids the need to leap from stub to stub to gain information. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my deletion nomination, however I would be willing to support a merge proposal. As Sander said, they are non-noteworthy on their own, but together they could mean something. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  03:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  03:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge per above discussion about best way to handle this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2010 (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.