Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model United Nations Development Programme
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shimeru (talk | contribs) at 06:08, 2 May 2010 (Closing debate, result was merge to Model United Nations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 06:08, 2 May 2010 by Shimeru (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was merge to Model United Nations)
- 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 Model United Nations. Shimeru (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Model United Nations Development Programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tries to assert notability, but there are not enough reliable sources per WP:GNG. Seems almost like a club website. Although in terms of AfD this isn't a valid argument, there are many much larger conferences such as the UCLA and Berkeley Model UN Conferences, as well as Stanford and Harvard that draw over a thousand participants from all over the world, and still don't have enough reliable sources. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Model United Nations. There is some useful content, but this programme is not notable, and the only two sources are not independent. If it could be sourced better, I'd change my mind. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2010 (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.