Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign Colonial Society Americans of Royal Descent


 * 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 "lack of sources" argument remains unrebutted and is compelling.  Sandstein  12:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sovereign Colonial Society Americans of Royal Descent

 * – ( View AfD View log )

While this organisation exists, I have not found in depth coverage of it in multiple reliable independent sources, so don’t believe it to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - The reference cited in the article appears to be RS and extends over about a page making it significant coverage, but no other references could be found making this a WP:GNG failure to to lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This society, which has been in existence for over 150 years is more or equally significant in notability to others which already have articles. See National Society Daughters of the American Colonists, Flagon and Trencher, Winthrop Society, etc. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Just because we have an article on A does not mean we have to have an article on B. If B does not pass our guidelines/policies then it won't be kept regardless of whether A passes them or doesn't pass them. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If it doesn’t have in depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, then by definition it is not “equally significant in notability to others”. Mccapra (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2021 (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.