Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Senior Citizen's Union


 * 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 European People's Party. J04n(talk page) 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

European Senior Citizen's Union

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as although it claims a large membership, there are no gnews results, and ghits appear self-published
 * Possible WP:SPA
 * Unreferenced
 * Promotional in tone
 * If kept, the title needs moving from citizen's to citizens' as per the official website Baldy Bill  ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 23:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, did not find any significant coverage of the subject from secondary or tertiary reliable sources to indicate subject is notable per WP:ORG or WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge (depending on whether sources get added during this AfD) to European People's Party. There are enough available sources (even just in English) to justify a section and redirect there. However, as the European People's Party does not currently have a British affiliate party, sources are more likely to be in German or Spanish  - and perhaps French, but the ESCU does not seem to have an affiliate in France. PWilkinson (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep if only because of the size of the membership. See German article on German sub-organization.  There shouldn't be questions of WP:SPA for an account with only 2 edits (in different articles!).  Does need more sources, but these are likely to be in languages I'm not familiar with.  The article does NOT have a promotional tone. This type of stub does no harm to Wikipedia, and the article is likely to expand. The arguments for deletion are purely formal, not substantive, so WP:IAR might be appropriate, but I don't even think we need to go that far.  The only problem is an inexperienced editor and lack of work on the article. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (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.