Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liga Panameña de Radioaficionados

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) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Panameña de Radioaficionados[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. no coverage in Spanish or English. those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of third pary coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 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} 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same cookie-cutter rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Exit above and argument now written entirely too many times. --Abd (talk) 14:10, 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. Another smallish national society but it deserves its own page. Dsergeant (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge back into the main article and split again when someone can provide sources for notability (they don't need to be online). There are just no sources to write a meaningful article on this association. It has almost the same exact text as Radio_Club_de_Costa_Rica, Club_de_Radio_Aficionados_de_El_Salvador, Club_de_Radioaficionados_de_Guatemala and Club de Radioexperimentadores de Nicaragua, so of course you can use the same rationale for deletion for all of them. Radio_Club_de_Honduras only's difference is one sentence that is sourced to their own website. This should have been a group nomination. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC) it's the organizer of the 2009 FRACAP reunion, and it appears in the "Manual de radioaficionados" of the Panama government, which has some 3 pages on the history of the Liga and of the FRACAP. I also found a source for the history of the Nicaragua association, which is also member of the FRACAP, so I guess that sources can be reasonably found for most if not all of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Enric. Yes as to group nomination, that's been noted in the other AfDs, would have saved a lot of trouble. However, this is the problem with these national member organizations of the IARU: many of them were founded and recognized years ago, and they continue in routine operation, and unless there is some disaster, they don't attract much notice outside of the ham radio world. In a disaster, the name of the organization might be mentioned, or not, it might just be individual members mentioned. However, due to the national character, and because these organizations represent the IARU to local government, and vice versa (represent local governmental concerns to the IARU), it is a certainty that sources exist, such as what you found. Eventually, we will have access to archives of QST, for it is all but completely certain that QST would have reported on every action of the IARU, but it is very difficult to search those archives, apparently, attempts have been made, and we will need much more specific information to locate the issue. It all takes time. Given the certainty, however, and the existence of IARU recognition, published by the IARU, I've argued that this is sufficient independent notice to justify an article on the dual basis: national scope (see WP:CLUB and international recognition by an independent notable organization, the IARU. It's been claimed that the IARU is not "independent," but when it recognized the pre-existing national organization, it certainly was. And it published that recognition (and maintains the list). Thanks for finding the source, that will help. --Abd (talk)

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.