Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DECA Ontario


 * 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 DECA (organization). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

DECA Ontario

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Provincial-level sub-organization of DECA (organization). No independent sourcing, and nothing to indicate that this particular sub-national association is notable enough to warrant its own article. Also not a useful redirect term. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unreferenced promotional article about a division of an organisation. No reason to think that this particular division is notable. (The parent organisation has an article DECA (organization) that itself has no independent references to establish its notability.) Maproom (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into DECA (organization). This is a worthy organization I'm sure.  And it has a surprising amount of press coverage, although the great bulk of it is just passing mentions - mostly "puff piece" profiles of a promising youngster which says they were in this organization.  I found a couple of articles that discuss it in a little more depth, and I have put them on the Talk page.  I don't have the time to incorporate them into the article, though I don't see enough there to warrant a separate article for this sub-organization.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to DECA (organization). I don't feel there is any significant content that could be merged with DECA (organization). It's all just puff and trivia, bordering on meriting deleting. But a one line mention and link on the parent page might be justified, along with any other sub-associations of this organisation (which covers 50 US states, Canada, China, Germany, Guam, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Spain!) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect There doesn't seem to be anything to merge and there's nothing to show this topic merits its own article. I'm going with redirect instead of delete because, well, "redirects are cheap". Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objections if the outcome is to merge any useful content and turn this title into a redirect. I just personally think that the provincial organization is so non-notable that we should just delete the history altogether. We could always create a redirect later if we really think it's needed. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're on the same page. I would have no objections to this article being deleted since I see nothing to show it's more notable than other state or provincial chapters.  I tend to vote for redirects if there's a reasonable target, even if it might not be my first choice. Papaursa (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This is such a small, non-notable part of a larger organization that I don't think it is worth even a redirect. It is unlikely that anyone will see this page but not the page of the parent organization. Virtually no useful content that isn't already on the parent page. Also fails WP:BRANCH Anthonyliu (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not much in the way to merge, and don't like redirects as they tend to be abused. I don't think the article has sufficient stand-alone notability, as there is numerous parent articles. scope_creep (talk) 12:31, 22 November 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.