Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington DeMolay


 * 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 and redirect to DeMolay International.

While the speedy request was - despite the nominator's statement - correctly contested since significance or importance, unlike notability, can be inherited, there is consensus that a) this page has no usable content and b) might be a plausible search term. Regards  So Why  13:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Washington DeMolay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested csd on grounds that the user believes notability is inherited, Its not and nor should we be hosting an entirley unsourced and overdetailed car crash of an article that is irredeemably original research. Its needs to be deleted if sources cannot be found or stubbed and started from scratch if they are. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I was actually in the process of filing an AfD myself but you said it better than I could have ever hoped to. I can't find any coverage, any sources that would establish notability and does not meet WP:GNG. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to DeMolay International - Wow! Is it just me or do others too see that 'No results found for "Washington DeMolay"' under the Google News section!? In any case, while DeMolay is notable, this particular chapter doesn't seem to be and neither are any reliable references available to verify if any. TopCipher (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to DeMolay International Cllgbksr (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to DeMolay International. CSD was never appropriate, although a prod might have been. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  22:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability can be inherited in certain circumstances. Not saying it applies here, but I read the nom's post and automatic dis-inclusion of inherited notability made me want to comment.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- unsourced org spam and original research. A redirect would be kind of misleading. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TNT. Nominally a candidate to merge into DeMolay International, but no page content is worth keeping. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to DeMolay International which covers state/provincial aspects. Lacks independent coverage needed for a separate article. Gab4gab (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Redirecting makes no sense as the main article doesn't discuss Washington at all, and I don't think it should. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 00:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as no independent significance, and WP:NOTINHERITED applying. See no need for redirection, as since the 'parent article' makes no mention of it, it is an unlikely search term. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  07:32, 19 May 2017 (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.