Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA Saskatchewan

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 merge to Canadian Automobile Association. We'll see if that article's notability issue will be finally addressed. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAA Saskatchewan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As written, fails WP:NORG. All sources are primary sources. The remainder of the potential sources do not provide significant coverage. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "CAA Saskatchewan" reveals limited, if any, press mentions of or about the organization—all of it is either passing mentions, which mentions the organization in a tangential way, or which provides coverage of trivial matters such as surveys the organization commissioned. In fact, I couldn't even find further trivial press mentions re: new products and services. So, apparently, the press isn't even interested in covering this organization except for covering the occasional commissioned survey on Saskatchewan's worst roads! As such, fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. I note, too, that few automobile associations meet WP:Notability, with only American Automobile Association attracting enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (was: ~~Speedy Keep~~), because an AFD is not needed. Although "Merge" would be okay as a decision (but it requires more thought, because it would effectively put a lock on article re-creation). This very short article could obviously be merged/redirected to a section within the Canadian Automobile Association article, at least for now and probably permanently, perhaps after calling for comments at its Talk page first. That does not require an AFD. That leaves open possibility of article's re-creation/expansion if substantial coverage is in fact found and someone is that interested; i would not rule out that possibility yet. --Doncram (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note this is one of a related series of AFDs:

Offhand, I think only one AFD should have been opened, or maybe none of them, because IMHO the first three probably should be redirected with or without Talk page discussion, but not needing an AFD, and the last should obviously be Kept (and IMO the current consensus of AFD discussion is for it to be kept). One multiple-item AFD could have been an alternative. Anyhow if you comment at one then please copy your comment over to the others. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Thanks. I'll remember that for next time. If the latter one is kept, despite there not appearing to be sources, there definitely isn't sufficient sources—especially enough reliable, independent sources on which to write articles of sufficient depth—to keep the other clubs. Few automobile associations are actually notable, especially when you consider my comments on Alberta Motor Association that they don't even disclose their annual reports or financial statements publicly (even to their own members). I can see some merit to merging them into, and rewriting, Canadian Automobile Association but you can't just say speedy keep without proving sources exist to write more than a stub. Thus, your vote should be Merge or Delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No way should the decision be "Delete", because it is obviously better to have at least a redirect in place, which also preserves original content and editor crediting in edit history. If material is in fact merged to main article, that should be done with an edit summary crediting editors of original article, and anyone very interested could find their way to that material and maybe import more of it, and/or would be able to re-create article if appropriate in the future, while still adhering to our copyright/crediting commitment to contributors, i.e. the Gnu Public License or whatever it was and whatever the current licensing is now.

I still prefer "Speedy Keep" as decision now, though I am not against your doing a sensible merge (leaving redirect) of the material for now (and if this is "Kept" you can still do that, even immediately. If there is an actual "Merge" or "Redirect" decision then that means we are taking the time to consider it in more detail than I want to do, and ruling that this should not be re-created by any editor in the future without their getting consensus somehow, like by an RFC. I'd rather leave that open, though I doubt anyone will re-create this if the merger is done sensibly. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, It's not a speedy keep. And, as Bearcat reminds us, we do have to prove that sources do exist. in terms of crediting the original author, there's not that much there worth crediting. I could've created this article, as written, in about 10 minutes. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, okay, call it merge then. --Doncram (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2019 (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.