Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sauerländer Heimatbund


 * 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. Sufficient sources have been found during the AFD to persuade a weak consensus that the subject of this article is sufficiently notable. Davewild (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sauerländer Heimatbund

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

acc. to WP:GROUP. This is a local non commercial ngo in Germany without any national or worldwide notability. Notability is tagged since 14 August 2008 (The editor creating the article is busy on other pages during this week). Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   —Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: article only has three references, none of which appear to be reliable sources. Fails WP:V and WP:N. --JD554 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Article needs more reliable sources. --Erdwerkel (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this user is a sockpuppet of User:Weissmann. Kevin (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, article needs expansion and better sourcing, but not deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My nomination is not about sourcing (although this fails WP:V too). It's because this organisation fails WP:N (here national notability), if you can prove its notability, I'll be happy to keep it. The fact that there is a German article, claims not that this assocciation is notable enough for the English wiki (and for the German wiki, but this would be their problem). Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, an organization with 80+ years of history and 3000 members at present is notable enough to have a wiki article. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My local working men's club has about 1000 members and has been going since 1922, but it isn't worthy enough for an article. --JD554 (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Scripts and sheets published by the Sauerländer Heimatbund (SHB) itself are not a reliable and independent secondary sources, IMHO. The inline references are A) one published by SHB B) a blog C) a website  of the publisher of the scripts and sheets of the SHB and the first one  is even not about the SHB at all (or broken in firefox and safari). Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Googling "Sauerländer Heimatbund" gives quite a few hits. Not overwhelming, but still notable. Some mentions,, , , , , . The organization also has a publishing activity . --Soman (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" WP:GROUP. We can discuss now if this google hits are incidental or if the SHB is the main subject. (I think JD554's working men's club will get a few google hits too. :-) Serious, I still believe this fails notability, even it's founded in the 1920s and have 3000 members and get some google hits. I can't see the national (or even state wide) notability. It is a local organisation, with local goals, local activity and local publications. Greetings (please excuse my bad English, I'm not a native speaker ans don't want to sound rude) Sebastian scha. (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google Books search finds sources such as these that demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, this need be included in the article. In the current status the artcle still shows no notability. Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless cleaned up with proper citations to reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Maxim  ( ☎ )  22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this needs a few more days to see how the article's going to shape up and some more comments would be nice.  Maxim  ( ☎ )  22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the references provided by Phil Bridger indicate sufficient coverage of this organization in third-party reliable sources to establish its notability per the general notability guideline. Stifle's "Delete unless cleaned up" essay advocates a position directly contrary to our deletion policy which expressly provides that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." John254 00:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think Stifle is right, this article will be a mess and sink into the eternal wiki ... you get my point? It is not notable now and I think never will be. (And I like this essay.) Sebastian scha. (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, per Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators, a clearly counter-policy essay, and subjective assertions of non-notability contradicted by objective evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, carry no weight in AFD discussions: "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." John254 02:35, 2 September 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.