Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Managers' Association Australia (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Courcelles 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Club Managers' Association Australia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Noting that no attempt has been made to improve the article or add reliable sources since the last AfD. Lacks indepth coverage. a mere 3 gnews hits. and limited results in Australian search engine trove, some small mentions but nothing indepth. yes they made a submission to the Productivity Commission but that does not count as third party coverage. Fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as per reasons listed by Orderinchaos in previous AfD. No new cogent reasons offered for deletion. Whiteguru (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * yes lack of sources to meet WP:ORG. Trove search also includes book publications that pre date internet. Unless you can provide evidence of sources I fail to see how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep National peak body. The organisation is not the sort where either Google or Trove (which is more useful for pre-1954 Australian stuff) would be a helpful search base - most of the sources on it would be in industry publications and local music press. Bduke, in the last debate, found an article from 1997 but didn't have access to retrieve it himself (I've looked and I've hit the same problem - needs someone with either physical access to the journal catalogue - which some unis would have on shelf - or a paid account.) Deletion is for cases where notability is in question - "did not improve in self-specified period" is not by itself a reason for deletion. It's one of those times one is reminded that even in 2011, not everything is actually online. Orderinchaos 15:36, 17 July 2011 (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.