Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postal Label Study Group


 * 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. The proposed redirect does not strike me as a likely search term and is not mentioned in the target article, which is itself a poorly sourced stub. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Postal Label Study Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been unsourced since its creation in September 2014. I cannot find any in-depth coverage. There are some directory references and the group's publication has had some passing mentions but I have found nothing that gets close to establishing notability. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  00:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary of unsourced terms. Otr500 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find no substantial, independent sources and I think the article fails WP:NORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DELETE - WP:NOTFACEBOOK, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not notable. Acnetj (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not indication of reliable independent sourcing to establish notability. Snow let's rap 05:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:CHEAP to Airmail etiquette. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That would point the redirect towards and entirely different subject matter; the target proposed target article is about the actual topic of stamps used in airmail, while the title of this article concerns a specific (but non-notable) organization which is organized for the appreciation of stamps used in airmail. Furthermore, the organization is not even mentioned in the proposed target article. This would not by any means be an appropriate circumstance for a redirect, WP:CHEAP or no.  Perhaps you meant to suggest a merge? If there was a merge of content, then the redirect would have a basis, but as there are no RS here, you might hit resistance to even mentioning this group in the proposed target article. Sn<b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 21:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.