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.
Comment - I am comfortable with keeping this article and agree with Mccapra that the promotional argument is not correct given that the organisation is defunct.
Deus et lex (
talk) 23:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep if the organisation is defunct I don’t see how the article can be promotional. There seems to be enough substance here for a stand alone article. If consensus says otherwise then merge and redirect.
Mccapra (
talk) 07:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like some discussion about why this should not be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vaticidalprophet (
talk) 08:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect as suggested. Right now, there are no secondary sources in the article. If it truly is defunct, it is unlikely that there would be a retrospective.
A redirect is cheap. Therefore, let's move the whole thing there. A smerge is acceptable.
Bearian (
talk) 21:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)!reply
Redirect makes sense in this case.
HighKing++ 12:29, 29 January 2021 (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.