Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale College Democrats


 * 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   redirect to College Democrats. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yale College Democrats

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Single chapter of College Democrats--notability is not inherited from University or national organization (WP:NOTINHERITED). No evidence of stand-alone notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. There's nothing to distinguish this chapter from the hundreds of other chapters (Run-of-the-mill). GrapedApe (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 14.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  18:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to College Democrats; subject has received significant coverage, however from what I can find most of that significant coverage is in its local area. Per WP:ORG, the chapter needs to receive significant coverage outside its area to be considered independently notable from its parent organization. Most coverage outside of its local area is passing mention, although there are multiple passing mentions in multiple reliable source (the vast majority which do not have the subject of this article under consideration as the primary subject of the publication); I am of the opinion that those multiple mentions outside of its local area do not add up to be considered significant coverage. Therefore, the content should be summarized down to only what can be verified and is relevant, and merged to the parent organization article, and a redirect left in its place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect - RightCow makes a very logical statement.—  - dain   omite    01:59, 20 February 2013 (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.