From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply

National Christian Forensics and Communications Association clubs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

National Christian Forensics and Communications Association clubs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN; I could not find any reliable sources discussing these clubs. The references are just to the club websites. As the talk page demonstrates, the list is unverifiable since these clubs are ephemeral and there is no way to tell which ones are still active. Cerebellum ( talk) 21:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Just a simple directory, none of any entries are notable. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comments I'm afraid I don't understand the deletion rationale, or if I do understand it that rationale doesn't seem to be in alignment with standard practices on Wikipedia. For example, there's no need for every entry on a list to be notable--if they were, then every entry on the list would (or could) have its own article. Yet we have lots of list articles that don't meet that strict standard. An argument could be made that many of the sources are not third party (it sure looks that way) so that wouldn't point to notability of each organization, but there's not an article about each organization and it's okay from at least a verifiability standpoint. As for clubs that might not be active any more, there's no requirement in the list that it be current and in fact has a disclaimer. If this content were merged to National Christian Forensics and Communications Association then that article would be clumsy and awkward, but an argument could be made that it's worthy of inclusion. Yet at the same time, I wonder just how big this organization could be and how much the list could grow--possibly to the point of being ridiculous.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Paul, I probably expressed the rationale poorly. As far as I can tell, none of the sources are third party. In my opinion this means that the article fails the portion of LISTN that says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 15:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I do that all the time, thanks for clarifying. Not ready to take a position yet, but admittedly it doesn't look good for the list...-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I'm ready. Delete fails WP:LISTN and Wikipedia is not a directory--certainly not for a list of local clubs by state that the organization's website would either maintain themselves or prefer to keep private.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:20, 17 April 2019 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Christian_Forensics_and_Communications_Association_clubs&oldid=892961209"