Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Réseau Luxembourgeois des Amateurs d'Ondes Courtes


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping  11:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Réseau Luxembourgeois des Amateurs d&

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews in English, French, German or Dutch. I hope no one now suggests coverage exists in some other foreign language. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - What's going on is a progressive knocking off of all the articles dealing with the national organisations at small-country level (promoting inconsistency of transnational coverage). Opbeith (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * that does not prove how this meets WP:ORG. it's simply WP:ILIKEIT argument. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same cookie cutter rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * strongly disagree, I don't like mass nomination, this is not a cookie cutter, I have done searches for each. people like you will just vote !keep regardless. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator raises a legitimate issue, but should not raise it many times in many AfDs. Rather, a coherent decision should be made at the parent organization article how to deal with national member organizations that are not independently qualified for articles: should they nevertheless have stubs, treating them all equally, with individual chapters where more sources exist being expanded? Or should there be a "List of" article? Or just the section in the main article? In terms of the efficiency of the development of the encyclopedia, it's obvious to me which one will facilitate the widest participation by casual editors. If the stub exists, it will grow. It's much easier to add information to an article that exists than to create one anew, and IP editors can't even do the latter. Having the stubs in place for all the national member organizations facilitates uniformity of treatment. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2010 (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.