Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickerson Family Association (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   delete. Big Dom  08:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nickerson Family Association
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was the subject of an AFD (Articles for deletion/Nickerson Family Association) over three years ago. As the archived discussion indicates, there was weak support for keeping the article, with The revision history shows no changes since September 2009, when a WP:SPA added more unreferenced detail. It's July 2011, and the hoped-for improvement in secondary sources during the last AFD has not come to past. With its only source a primary source, and no evidence of notability established in the otherwise unreferenced article, it is clearly a candidate for AFD. 67.101.5.92 (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * saying "- This isn't some fly-by-night geneology club: and "If you know of neutral, verifiable sources, by all means please add them"
 * saying "Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources...and see what develops"
 * saying "Needs refs"
 * (who proposed deletion) saying "Contested prod; non-notable family organization, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources"
 * AFD page created for an unregistered user based on request at WT:AFD using information on the article talk page. GB fan (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unsourced article about a family genealogical society of no encyclopedic import. Wikipedia is not the Nickersons, after all. WP:NOTNICKERSONS. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's tiresome to see these AfDs close with a complete lack of reliable sources, and yet not only have Keep people claim that they're notable absent such sources, but that stance taken seriously at close. WP:INS is unequivocal: "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  Period.  This article never should have been given more time beyond the seven days the original AfD ran, and it should be given no more time now.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per lack of notable mentions. It may have dodged the first nomination because the article was given a chance to prove itself notable, but no sources were found. SwisterTwister   talk  06:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources, and non-notable beyond the small intricate world of the Nickersons. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:26, 4 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.