Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Aligned Left

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 delete. Sandahl 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Aligned Left (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Vverifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Factions which have been documented independently of the NUS should be mentioned at that article. Filling the NUS article up with a list of short-lived factions that didn't really get off the ground, won't be improving it.Garrie 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are sources from the Green Left Weekly but they may not be enough to warrant an independent article. [1]. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Garrie. I don't think the GLW is a reliable source, and as a student faction they get little press elsewhere - hence the value to the encyclopaedia is slight. Orderinchaos 10:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No secondary sources, therefore not notable per WP:N. Agree with Orderinchaos that GLW isn't a reliable source on its own. Assize 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and under such an article title, I would certainly not expect to find a faction of a student association. 132.205.44.134 18:29, 22 June 2007 (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.