Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Sledge Hockey 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- British Sledge Hockey Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about an apparently non-notable organization. There do not seem to be sufficient sources to establish notability according to WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Governing organization of National Team which competes in international events is notable.[1]. Valid encyclopedic articles should be expanded, not deleted. Dolovis (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, but allow for renomination for deletion if article is not improved. The subject is lacking in extensive coverage, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG right now. However, I agree with Dolovis that the subject is inherently notable. Thus, I think improvement is the best course of action. If, after a few months, we still haven't found sources, then maybe we rethink whether to keep the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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.