Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older people’s associations


 * 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. I find it impossible to reach consensus based on a nomination that does not actually state why the article is at AfD. the_undertow  talk  22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Older people’s associations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Google says no to this one. αѕєηιηє t/c 11:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Paste (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Anjouli is absolutely correct, I was being lazy as I was so surprised to see such an article here when I would have thought that it would have been speedily deleted. We may as well have articles such as :- 'Sports Clubs' are clubs where people play sport!
 * Comment Sports club exists (yes, I know - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I don't think that last point is a great argument for this article being deleted anyway, as it's not simply saying "An older people's association is an association of older people" - if it was, it would have been speedied under CSD A3. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * May i suggest marking it as a stubrather than deleting? Still new to wikipedia editing so will leave final decision to you guys. Maxthetax1974 (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - What specifically about the Google results says we should delete? Hit count alone is not a valid indicator of notability, per WP:GOOGLE. There may also be a bias given the article's subject. These groups are also known as elderly people's associations. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 12:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:RS and WP:V in its current form. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom.
 * Comment. All of the delete votes above (and the original nomination) are classic examples of Arguments to Avoid in Delete Discussions WP:AADD Anjouli (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There seems to be currency for this term especially in Bangladesh and Thailand, where they provide community services, apart from being a social network a la US "Senior Centers" and the like. Needs sources and context, desperately. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced and unverifiable in its current form, substub, dictionary material almost. If an article about this is to be written, this is not it.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:51, 26 March 2008 (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.