- 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. Other than the nomination itself, there were no explicit calls for deletion, but a couple of calls for it to be kept, both by established editors. It is to be recommended that suitable sourcing is found for the article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Swedwatch (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)
Not really sure about this one. I can find lots of passing mentions but nothing really that constitutes both a reliable source and non-trivial coverage about the organisation itself. Discuss. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reading the Swedish-language version of this article it seems apparent that this is a notable organization that has several other major organizations among its membership. It obviously needs to be expanded and referenced. __meco (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any sources? I had trouble finding suitable ones but I don't know if that's just me being a bonehead. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just looked at the article you're talking about, and if it's this that you're referring to, I have to disagree with you. The text of that article doesn't indicate notability anymore than the article here, and it, too, is completely unreferenced. Notability is based on in-depth coverage by independent third-party sources, not claims of importance on another WikiMedia project. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - expansion needed though.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- no explanation is provided on how notability is met? LibStar (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2012 (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.