Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utah Eagle Forum


 * 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 consensus was that this chapter of the Eagle Forum was not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mandsford 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Utah Eagle Forum

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Doesn't seem to be notable; not really worth merging into Eagle Forum as the policy statements are already adequately covered and the one news incident isn't important. Roscelese (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Easily incorporated into the larger article, briefly, shedding unneeded detail about non-notable members and activities. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - So far as the notability of the topic itself. This is clearly a situation where local knowledge/specialized knowledge is important.  The Utah Eagle Forum is routinely a topic of discussion in the Salt Lake City media market and I'm sure you can dig up dozens if not hundreds of news stories from multiple media outlets about this group.  Seriously, I am beside myself that this is even up for nomination at all and wouldn't even be considered among Utans.  The only rationale for deletion is that this is a poorly written article and that perhaps by deleting it a better article could come in its place.  That doesn't sound like a good rationale for deletion and is contrary to stub policy (which this article clearly is a stub).  I'm not disputing that this is a horribly written article, but that sounds like a reason to do some cleanup tags, not an AfD.  It ought to go without saying that a conservative organization is going to be quite strong in the reddest of the red states in America.  A quick Google search ought to show plenty of sources to satisfy notability concerns.  --Robert Horning (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jujutacular  talk 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The only difference I see in the sources between the national group and the Utah group is the discussion over a film shown in a Utah school. The priorities seem to be the same and the announced statements of beliefs seem to be the same for the Utah branch as the national group. Maybe take the sourcing for the film discussion and merge it into the main article but even that would seem trivial. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. Seems like a clearcut case for WP:CLUB: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 5 December 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.