Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wessex Society of Newfoundland and Labrador


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn with the discussion leaning to keep. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wessex Society of Newfoundland and Labrador

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable organization. I declined the AfC for this; the editor User:HeritageNL, rearranged the sections, added a paragraph sourced only tot he groups own minutes, & moved it themselves into mainspace. The one good reference is about someone associated with the organization.  DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are several good references there. The unfortunate thing is that they are supporting content that is not about this subject, and are mainly about Newfoundland English.  Fortunately, our article on that is not apparently in need of them.  Others are about Otto Tucker and about a Trinity Trust.  The sources supporting the stuff that actually is about the article subject are by Otto Tucker or from the organization itself. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Added citations for two secondary source articles about the society, cleaned up the article a bit more. Thanks for your suggestions! --HeritageNL (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dra ftify. I checked all the sources with links. This source appears to pass WP:GNG and may pass WP:CORPDEPTH. There are also around a dozen other sources that didn't have links, and need a more thorough verification process such as by using WP:RX. This kind of research should be done in draftspace by an AFC reviewer, where there isn't the one week time limit of an AFD. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * tracked down another secondary source on microfiche about the formal chartering of the organization, added note and citation to article. HeritageNL (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Added URLs to citations where they could be found, changed inappropriate citations to secondary sources where possible. Remaining citations without URLs seem to reference print-only sources. HeritageNL (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple secondary sources added, flow of article improved somewhat. HeritageNL (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I took a look at your new sources just now. I judge these 4 to be the best: . Some are borderline for various reasons. Second opinion on these sources anyone? Do they pass GNG? Thank you. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just barely encyclopedic . Ref 1 is by far the only really usable source, but it might be enough However, most of the material in the articles is local or organizational detail, such as a list of speskers, that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia . . I'm withdrawing the AfD, and will remove most of section 2. after thisis closed.  DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 17 April 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.