Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People on the March

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. Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People on the March

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

My searches simply found nothing (I'm a Spanish speaker so I would've known what sources were relevant) and for this article to stay unsourced and the same since May 2005 is not a good sign. It appears there's no Spanish Wiki article and, granted this from Peru and before the Internet so sources may not be easily accessible but this still needs attention. SwisterTwister talk 19:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notability, no sources, very small political party. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to assert notability per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the lack of significance for this organization, it's best described as a section in some other page somewhere. It doesn't merit its own article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2015 (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.