Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

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. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

[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)

I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this organisation in reliable third-party sources. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good grief: "ALGAO is the national body representing local government archaeological services on behalf of County, District, Unitary and National Park authorities. ALGAO co-ordinates the views of member authorities (110 in total) and presents them to government and to other national organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association on archaeological matters." Massively influential national body representing archaeology at every level of government in the UK. That's not notable? Do me a lemon! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be so, but has it translated to any usable sources? I came across this article because it's been unreferenced for thirteen years—one of the few remaining unreferenced archaeology articles left, by the way—and after some time searching I couldn't rectify that. I'm happy to be corrected but without sources we can't write an article, no matter how influential the subject. – Joe (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it may be a "massively influential national body" but where's the coverage? Google news comes up with 4 hits, 1st and 3rd being not indepth and 4th is a letter to a newspaper. There are plenty of google books hits but most seem 1 line mentions when I looked at the first few pages of results. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added sourcing to the article, one of the strongest cases of 'presumed notability' I've seen in a long while. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However, you added nine references, and: [1] has just a single sentence stating what ALGAO is; [2], [3], [4], [5] are reports and publications of ALGAO itself; [6] is a press release about a report ALGAO produced; [7] and [8] offer passing mentions in the context of a manufactured "war on woke" story; and [9] doesn't mention the subject. So we still have no significant coverage in independent sources. Notability does appear to have been presumed for the last decade, but that presumption has so far proved wrong. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 9 December 2024 (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.