Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Closing as keep since notability is established with the addition of new sources. Further discussions regarding the sources, if needed, can be done in the talk page (where the quotes are added from ProQuest), outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Zero secondary sources. Does not meet WP:NORG, lacking 'significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for the further evaluation of sources provided. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've listed 5 sources on the article's Talk page out of 424 available Proquest sources. Under WP:NEXIST, Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep given the availability of sources now demonstrated. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. An assessment of sources is also needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment — For editors without access to ProQuest entries, I've quoted text from each ProQuest article on Talk:The Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership. I hesitated to quote those texts in the article citations quote parameters, being unsure of copyright limitations, but editors fact-checking the article can see the quoted texts on the talk page. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.