Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Union of Belgian Radio Amateurs


 * 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) C T J F 8 3  GoUSA 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Royal Union of Belgian Radio Amateurs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews in English, 3 hits in Dutch, nothing in French and zilch in German. look forward to someone saying there must be non English sources. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — Non-profit organizations operating on national level are notable per WP:CLUB. PanchoS (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * it does not meet criterion 2 of WP:CLUB. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * are you kidding? "UBA is the national member society representing Belgium in the International Amateur Radio Union." PanchoS (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * where are the third party sources? LibStar (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * IARU's member list should be enough to verify basic information, which constitutes notability. PanchoS (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * then perhaps it should just be listed on International Amateur Radio Union article. Do you concede there is a lack of third party coverage? LibStar (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is definitely third party coverage, but I'm having difficulties because it's all in Dutch or French. Working on translating some of it. ManicSpider (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per PanchoS. [!vote copied from another IARU deletion nomination today] This is a stub supplemental to International Amateur Radio Union, standard information that is better in a linked page than on the IARU page, it would be excessive detail there. The minimal information that is there is sufficiently verifiable for usage, and notability is established by being the national member society. Deleting stubs like this only makes it harder to grow a deeper article. --Abd (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Deleting stubs like this only makes it harder to grow a deeper article" it is almost impossible to grow this article due to a complete lack of third party coverage. please provide such evidence and I will withdraw the nomination. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, I will mention that AFD is not cleanup. AFD is to discuss Probable Notability. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * not probable, actual notability, you and no one else has provided any evidence of significant third party coverage as required for WP:N and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing you may be overlooking is "Notability is not temporary" - On line archives of news or other coverage will only go back as far to the early 1990's at best. It is reasonable to assume that at the point the organisation became 'Royal' there would have been coverage in some printed form. If your point however is one of WP:V that may be different Codf1977 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * provide evidence of coverage then. google news goes back to pre1900 in many instances. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  —PanchoS (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —PanchoS (talk) 06:15, 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 (at least 5 in today's AFD list alone)). 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 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep My original view of this was that LibStar was correct in that it fails and it does not meet WP:GNG due to lack of third party coverage. But if a group or organisation has a membership of 3,000, has been going for some 80+ years, is clearly 'national' in it outlook and operation and has had at some point in it's history some sort of Royal patronage (as implied by it's title) then I feel it does scrape over the WP:N bar without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of the coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * age and membership is irrelevant. WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:ORG must be met. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:ORG says that age can be considered, if sources considered it. For example, if there are sources that celebrate it's 80th anniversary, then we can consider its longevity to be a notable feature for both notability and WP:DUE purposes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, as was pointed out to me in another AfD - WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are all guidelines - there is no must be met about them.
 * I believe it does or can meet WP:CLUB :
 * The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. - It is
 * Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources, including at least one secondary source. - this is one - I am sure there must be others but am hampered by the fact I don't read French. However it does backup the clubs biggest claim to notability. Codf1977 (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Codf1977 that it is a notable organization, that has been around for over 80 years. Part of a notable group, the International Amateur Radio Union.   D r e a m Focus  15:45, 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) 00:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the directions. I'd like to encourage anyone reading this to please actually read the recently updated WP:ORG, and especially the WP:CLUB section, instead of relying on third-hand rumors about what someone once thought it said.  Practically every assertion on this page about this notability guideline is completely wrong.  WP:NRVE and WP:ORG do not ever accept zero-source claims of notability.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "zero-source" claim of notability here. There is, rather, at least a single high-quality source, the IARU recognition as a national member, as independently published by them, and there is the practical certainty of the existence of other sources, which are difficult to find. If someone has an archive of QST it would help. The "recently updated" guidelines were "updated" by WhatamIdoing, and those changes were reverted, by me, and this is under discussion there, as I noted above in smalltext. --Abd (talk) 16:07, 24 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.