Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aruba Amateur Radio Club

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Amateur Radio Club

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [1]. those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of third party coverage, not just say it exists. and I doubt there is foreign language coverage for this one. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. And also pointing out that AFD is not Cleanup, in every case. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Exit2Dos2000. Establishment of individual notability for each member association may be moot, an overall decision should be made, either editorially at the international organization article, or in a mass AfD. The argument that each member association is a separate case is a red herring. It's true: if individual national members are to be treated differently, each one would be separate. But if they are all to have minimal stubs, for overall coherence, then debating whether or not there is enough source for each stub is to multiply discussion without adding sufficient value. Consensus should be negotiated on the overall issue, before proceeding through a forest of AfDs, each one requiring substantial work and administrator time to review. --Abd (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Membership of IARU should be adequate for notability purposes. Dsergeant (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.