Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assamese Associations

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. Davewild (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assamese Associations[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully, we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems more of a directory than an encyclopedia article. I selected a few other cultures and national identities at random, to see whether it was common to publish lists of associations for them on Wikipedia, and found no evidence that it was. (Were there more than two such associations with entries, I would suggest creating a category for them, rather than an article of this sort.) Helenabella (Talk) 08:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research as there are no third-party sources. As a list of organizations it is most likely useful to some researchers, but it is not encyclopedic in nature. LaMona (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no indpendent sources to show this meets GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 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.