Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Brunswick Scottish Cultural Association

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Scottish Cultural Association[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. gnews also indicates it holds events but nothing indepth [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question There is some coverage of the issues it deals with. [[2]], but my question is this: my reading of WP:CLUB seems to cut out every organization that doesn't have a national presence. How do groups like Virginia_Historical_Society survive that? I'm just wondering, I don't see the distinction. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article you provide is not really indepth. it cites a member of the org making a public comment. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Still wondering about whether a group has to be national to be notable. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A group does not have to be national to be notable, there just needs to be some evidence of coverage by independent 3rd-party sources. 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There is some press coverage from the local area, but I'm not sure it's really enough to pass the notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2011 (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.