Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saffron Walden Conservatives


 * 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.  Kurykh  03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Saffron Walden Conservatives

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was declined speedy, though I'm not quite sure why. The article asserts notability because the Saffron Walden Conservative association is one of the most successful in the country. However, a Google search (standard, news and books) brings nothing up to substantiate such a claim. The article itself only offers links to Conservative sites and news sites with Conservative feeds. It is just political spam - I can't think of any notable UK constituency associations of any party that would deserve their own article and I can't find anything that would bring this up to standard. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I declined the speedy, because the article contained assertions of notability, as the nominator themselves notes. There is a difference between the bars required for Speedy and AfD, for obvious reasons. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep http://www.google.com/search?q=saffron+walden+conservatives&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8 our Google pressence and can you please allow us time to upload our history section, I am sure this will bring the article up to standard. Seeing as you can find millions of articles based on former Norwich city reserve players who played 3 games, our article is far more relevant than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffronwaldenconservatives (talk • contribs)
 * Comment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - that argument won't get you anywhere. Notability of this must be asserted using reliable secondary sources.  Note the text at WP:RS : Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note User:Saffronwaldonconservatives has fallen foul of the username policy and the account is blocked. --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete First page of Google is full mostly of sites apparently owned by the org or mentioning just Saffron Walden. GNews returns nothing. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - its effectivly a self-bio/publicity hub, as opposed to an encyclopedic article or subject. It also fails WP:notability. Plus, where would it stop - the Outer Mongolia greater or lesser liberal club? I can but agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Local constituency organisations can be notable, but no strong evidence of this is given in the article. Notable constituency organisations would be those which, for example, have been centres of controversy etc. No evidence given that this group is the subject of multiple non trivial references in reliable sources. NB The constituency itself is of course notable. --Dweller (talk) 22:27, 21 January 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.