Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Broad Left

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 wasDelete per consensus and the fact that the sources come from GLW, which are not RS.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Broad Left

National Broad Left (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (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 08:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with the National Union of Students JForget 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are independent references mainly from the Green Left Weekly. Whether that is enough to sustain a standalone article is another question. [1]. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 10:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Why would GLW not qualify as a reliable source? --Soman 17:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. Well possible to rewrite into an encyclopediatic article. [2], [3] deal with NBL. --Soman 17:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Existing and doing something notable are two different things -- Steve Hart 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
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.