Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Commonwealth Society

Add links
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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Commonwealth Society[edit]

Federal Commonwealth Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)


DELETE

  • It is not a registered organisation in any country.
  • It does not publish accounts.
  • It shows no evidence that it even exists outside cyberspace.
  • It was written by the organisation itself.
  • It does not provide any evidence that it is 'notable' or 'remarkable' in any way.
  • Wikipedia should not be used to 'recruit' members to an organisation.
  • There organisation website does not provide an address or contact details other than email and the address of a canadian condo.
  • When I tried to contact them regarding this issue on their website's forum, Several (although admitadly not all) provided responses which were very worrying, and used explicit insulting and vulgar language.
  • The article provides no outside or neutral viewpoints.
  • There are no outside or neutral references.
  • This organisation has either roughly 200 or roughly 50 members(sources vary). This in my opinion is too few for a wikipedia article. RepublicUK 09:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV
  • Non Notable
  • It already was deleted once and someone put it back.RepublicUK 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the above be correctly summarized as "Not Notable" and "NPOV Violations"? Bo 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - Please provide sources for, for example, its not publishing accounts. And why you believe the fact it doesn't publish contact details makes it non-notable. Here are the google search results, including a BBC reference. [1] --Couter-revolutionary 09:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, did you research this at all RepublicUK? You said: "*There organisation website does not provide an address or contact details other than email." But, when I enter the "contact us" section, this is what I found:
"Federal Commonwealth Society
30 Dale Avenue, Suite 1003
Scarborough, Ontario
M1J 3N4 CANADA"
Please research something before making false claims. --Couter-revolutionary 10:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thats a residential address, also it is not for RepublicUK to prove NN it is for others to prove it is notable.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the points you made:
This is a private address, It is not registered to any organisation.
Without publishing its accounts it is not an official organisation, I do not have to prove that it is not publishing accounts, YOU have to prove that it IS publishing accounts.
It is not registered with the electoral authorities in any of the nations that it professes to be active in, all political organisations and not just political parties have to be registered.
Google is a search engine and so can't be used for referencing.
The only reference for it on the BBC website is in the 'action network' section and was written by the organisation itself and has not been updated for almost 3 years. The 'action network' section can be written by anyone and needs no proof or evidence that what has been written is true. RepublicUK 10:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth do you know it is a private address, have you been there? "Suite 1003" sounds like an office to me. You have proposed it for deletion, you prove it doens't publish accounts. And yes, I too believe the proposal for deletion was in bad faith.--Couter-revolutionary 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a private address because it is a condo.

You clearly don't understand how this works, I nominated it for deletion and you have to prove that it shouldn't be. I know it doesn't publish accounts by their own admission.

  • Keep. This is an organisation worthy of an article, particularly if one were to compare with the hundreds of far less notable articles on websites, etc. currently on wikipedia. I also get the impression that this nomination may have been in bad faith. An Edwardian Sunday 11:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What proof have you to say that "This is an organisation worthy of an article", it is not good enough to just state that, you must provide evidence, also on of the arguements to avoid during an AfD is "particularly if one were to compare with the hundreds of far less notable articles on websites" - provide evidence to prove notablility or else these words will just sound pretty hollow.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Just because there articles less notable doesn't mean that this should automatically existRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The organization has been noted in other online 'news' sources (generally unfavorably) including rumormillnews, irishunionism, and themonarchist. The article could use a more NPOV. - If it survives the AfD I'll work to provide that (Yes I know I should do so before, but I'm tired of working on articles that get 'flushed') - maybe someone else can make it more neutral while the article is being considered. Bo 13:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Blogs and internet forums do not satisfy WP:RS, its seems pretty much all of theGhits are for internet forums and mirrors.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You have not provided any evidence that it has been noted in the news.
  • Comment. Less than 200 members makes an organisation unremarkable RepublicUK 15:03, 23

February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this user has made one edit! An Edwardian Sunday 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some independent sources include:
http://anglosphereunionnow.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_archive.html
Comment This is a blog with no references to the FCS, It doesn't even have a single entry and hasn't been edited for 2 years.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/search/label/Churchill
Comment The only reference to the FCS is a very small link to a defunct website.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.delhiin.com/wiki-Commonwealth_of_Nations
Comment There is no reference to the FCS, there is just a link at the very bottom of the page to the FCS website. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=92732
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/links.html Bo 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a reference, It is just a website with a link to the FCS website without any info about it whatsoever.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.africancrisis.org/ZZZ/ZZZ_News_008690.asp another 'good one' Bo 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no evidence that this is anything to do with this organisation. It has a link to a website that has the same initials but a completely different name.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is exactly the same as the african crisis link. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all blogs which are not independent sources.RepublicUK 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to take different views on the organization, and aren't hosted by the same group. Perhaps I'm confused on what counts as 'independent source'. Bo 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They could have been written by anyone of youRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These are not realiable sources.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conceded - Sources listed (by me) are not Reliable, and do not met wikipedia's standard as 'citations' Bo 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. This organisation has set the process in motion with regards to registering in the countries it is active. But it isn't registered yet. - User:81.151.155.249
8th edit by this user. 6 of the others on the article under AfD. Tyrenius 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment.Then it can have a page when it is registered.
  • Comment. Incidently How many of you are not members of this organisation?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Wiki is not a crystal ball, if it becomes notable in future then an article should be written.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. RepublicUK appears to be a single-purpose account, with fewer than 50 edits here and a remarkable knowledge of things like checkuser requests (15th edit), vanity articles & references ([2]), and AfD. He has made only two edits unrelated to this topic. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you implying?RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is because this is a new accountRepublicUK 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But what is YOUR reason for keeping.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.May become notable in future but is not notable at the moment and also there are no sources.--Vintagekits 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Almost all of the people that have voted are members of this organisation.RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can not know that. I am not a member. It is irrelevant. - Kittybrewster 09:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- seems to be an important movement within the Commonwealth. Astrotrain 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On what basis are you making that comment.--Vintagekits 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It can't be an important movement within the commonwealth because nobody has ever heard of it
  • Comment. Please don't make assertions you cannot prove. You do not know who has/hasn't heard of it or who is/isn't a member.--Couter-revolutionary 12:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is for you to prove the Societies notablility not vice versa.--Vintagekits 12:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has only 50 members 50 out of more than 25% of the worlds population.RepublicUK 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence for this comment? A reference?--Couter-revolutionary 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Non notable fails Wikipedia:Notability and its website looks as if it has been designed by someone who has created the project in their spare time. --Barry talk 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been mentioned that the address is a residential address, I would just like to point out that that isn't true. There are many businesses resident in the same building as the provided address, and it appears on the satellite images, and internet research to be an office building of some sort. Also the claim it only has 50 members is shot down by the graph at the bottom of the main page that clearly shows exactly how many members it has, looks to be around 200 members. Not a lot I'll agree, but more than 50. Ben W Bell talk 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment. I find it interesting to note that the OP's very first edit on Wikipedia was to this article, to add something [3]. A couple of days later he added more information on it being controversial [4]. This was then deleted by an anon user, but RepublicUK then altered the article again [5], seemingly knowing something going on about the organisation. The following day he nominated the article for deletion. I'm sorry but I feel there is something else going on here, the OP expands the article, adds some bits that are removed and then nominates it for deletion. Almost all the OPs edits are to this article. Call me old fashioned but there could be something else going on here with this nomination, I think someone may be trying to make a point and this nomination is in bad faith and singleminded against his declared membership of Republic (whatever that may be). His contribs also seem to show a singleminded push against the organisation [6]. Ben W Bell talk 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree, there are signs of sockpuppetry, however, that does not prove the Societies notability. Maybe you should focus on proving notability and then we can fish out if or if not he is a sock.--Vintagekits 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - The manner in which the above comments appear is a violation of POV in itself. Where in Wiki's rules does it say that an organisation must present accounts to anyone? It seems a credible enough organisation, which, one should add, is well-known at London's Royal Commonwealth Society. But more importantly, the nominator of this AfD has clearly come to Wiki with an agenda, as demonstrated when he set up his User page, where he announced: "I represent the UK organisation Republic which can be found at www.republic.org.uk. So really, should we believe anything he says here? Christchurch 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Right that all well and good but where is the proof of notability?--Vintagekits 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator of this AfD is not required to challenge the opinions of each person who votes to keep (he has now posted 14 times on this page - his avid supporter Vintagekits at leats 7 times in the same vein). It is for Wiki editors to give their views and for the ajudicators to then decide. That is how the process works. Christchurch 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually that's not true, Vintagekits has it right. People on these discussions express their evidence and their opinion, the comments are not votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The comments, the manner of the comments, any evidence supplied and so on are taken into account by the admin who closes the debate, but the closing admin has the final say in the matter. There could be 15 people saying Keep, and 2 saying Delete, and it gets deleted on the basis of what is supplied, not how people believed they "voted". Just for future reference. Ben W Bell talk 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please, Ben W Bell, could you have the democracy bit put on Wikipedia's home page please. This seems to me important as the founders seem to think it is a democracy. David Lauder 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Ben W Bell talk 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.No, how wiki works is on proof! When you state something even just an opinion you should be able to back that up with proof. So far NOT ONE EDITOR who has stated "Keep" has provided EVIDENCE of notability.--Vintagekits 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep saying that, maybe it shall become true.--Couter-revolutionary 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems verifiable and credible; has its own website and the subject itself is doubtless of great interest. Worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. 81.155.155.186 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd edit by this user, who has a very similar IP address to User:81.151.155.249 who has already !voted "keep" above. Tyrenius 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep:fulfils Wiki requirements. Notable in its own way and in its objectives. Chelsea Tory 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a lot of votes here calling this organization "notable," but there is zero assertion of notability in the article. If you're considering using "notable" as your reason for saying this article should be kept, then please review Wikipedia:Notability first to see what "notable" actually means in the context of Wikipedia. If the criterion here is notability, the article as it stands right now fails. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable: zero gnews archive hits, zero gbooks hits, zero scholar hits. Rather than assuring us that this is a notable organisation, without any supporting evidence, the case for inclusion would be better made by proving the notability of the organisation by providing supporting sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: total and utter reliance on the internet, as proposed by Angus McLellan, should never be the last word. Libraries still exist will millions of books and periodicals one cannot find on the internet, which is not the be all and end all. This organisation is contentious enough (at least for those opposed to it) in its objectives to be notable. It has a website. Mr Darcy in his comment refers to a Wiki guideline, the template of which tells us is not set in stone. David Lauder 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, OK then, what written text/books provide proof that it is notable. All we need is Major Bonkers and we have the full set.--Vintagekits 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vintagekits. You seem very busy on this issue.--Major Bonkers 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside and to be honest, I found that last exchange very amusing. Tyrenius 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As my dear friend Vintagekits says, printed sources would be absolutely wonderful. I don't see any in your comment here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirded. Incidentally, "there might be printed sources that make it notable" is definitely not a justification for keeping an article. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable; no sources for the article except organization's own website. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no references in the article and there is no indication that there has been any notice taken of this organisation by media or official bodies to signify its notability. Simple "keep" statements without verification are discountable. The BBC mention is not a news item but a post from the organisation itself by the look of it. If editors want this article kept, I suggest they get to work on it very quickly. At the moment there is no justification in the article itself for not deleting it. Tyrenius 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After much comment on this page I'm going to call for a delete on this. I can find no notability on the net for it outside of bits the organisation itself has posted or comments on forums. Even the webpage for the organisation seems confused as to what it is calling itself the "United Commonwealth Society" in most places rather than "Federal Commonwealth Society," and "United Commonwealth Society" receives exactly 0 Google hits which is damningly low (oddly enough doesn't even pick up the main site). Even the threads on the forums seem concerned more with less serious issues (not in itself damning) and seems more like a collection of like minded people (for the most part) hanging out rather than trying to achieve anything. Ben W Bell talk 08:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without wishing to criticise anyone or Wikipeida itself, I feel bound to say that by some of the strictures outlined above that the Encyclopaedia Britannica whould have to shed most of its content. There are far far less important and non-notable organisation/group pages on Wikipedia. At least this one has a profile and a purpose. David Lauder 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EB has different criteria to WP. It relies on the judgement of experts. WP can be edited by anyone, so verification is mandatory. Tyrenius 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The Society seems notable to me- I remember them being quoted by Sky News on Commonwealth Day in 2006. Astrotrain 10:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment If you can provide a supporting reference that is verifiable for their notability I will happily change my opinion, but I haven't managed to locate one. Remember, verifiability not truth (and I'm an Inclusionist). Ben W Bell talk 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their website doesn't seem to even exist anymore. Will people still argure that they are notable?

I see what you mean, it now directs to the Toronto Transformation Party. --Couter-revolutionary 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't read too much into that, could be that their hosting company has had an issue. I've seen it happen with many websites in the past where going to the URL would send you to somewhere else hosted by the same company, probably be fixed in the next couple of days. Does make it harder to judge though, but that shouldn't be take into account I'd imagine it's just a mistake somewhere. Ben W Bell talk 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out the Forum and apparently it is a server problem. Hamiltonguy 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)hamiltonguy[reply]

  • Strong delete. After waiting this one out for several days, and seeing no answer to the multiple requests for any outside sources, I am forced to recommend deletion. The information herein is unverifiable by any source other than the org's own website. This organization does not appear to have ever been mentioned in any reliable source, and the content itself does read like an publicity brochure. Given the complete lack of sources to refine the article, and the fact that it fails any test for notability, it needs to be deleted. The agenda of the nominator is noted above and is something to be discouraged, but his identification of this article as one failing to meet WP:V, the notability guidelines, and probably WP:NPOV as well is correct. Unfortunately, the personalities of the !voters appear to have come into play, and we have more block-voting on the Keep side by the same block who block-voted Delete on the AfDs for Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde, Diarmuid O'Neill, and Martin McCaughey. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we be clear on this. The same editors may not turn up on the same AfDs. The same or similar editors may not reach the same conclusions as each other. Is this a Wikipedia policy? "Block-voting" is your personal opinion. What have you and User:Tyrenius (who regularly support each other and vote exactly the same way) been telling other users about personal opinions? Really, I think your attitude towards other users is outrageous and wrong. David Lauder 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my take (and MrDarcy may have something different to say): editors often turn up on the same AfDs because they have the same interests. The problem occurs when those editors merely express biased opinions based on whether they approve of the subject or not, without attempting to objectively apply non-negotiable policies such as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, or guidelines such as WP:N and WP:RS. No one attempting to do this could possibly argue for the retention of this article. This does become a matter of concern and needs to be addressed. MrDarcy and I have taken the same stance on this article, because any non-biased editor would have to !vote delete, if they were following policy. Tyrenius 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. The only thing that I would add is that I was pointing out that when those editors are expressing the SAME biased opinions, using the SAME flawed justifications, it looks like users are acting in concert to sway Wikipedia in one direction. And that, to me, is unacceptable. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folks don't forget that some of us that 'voted KEEP' have actually posted material that we thought supported the position (the Africa Crises one where someone was making fun of the FCS as a racist organization that would support an "white" South Africa in particular looked 'good' to me at the time I added to this discussion), I have of course after review conceeded that the blog in question doesn't pass the 'reliable' test... But not all the 'Keeps' are from the established opposition party. Bo 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not directed at you, because you are doing what should be done, namely searching to see if references are available to justify the article, not just saying keep based only on personal preference. However, as none of the refs are in the article to substantiate it, maybe you should reconsider your position now. Tyrenius 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We seem to have the same admins, as well.--Major Bonkers 13:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost like a family. Tyrenius 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete in general agreement with MrDarcy and also per my comment previously. I am disappointed that those wishing to retain the article do not seem to understand that this cannot be achieved merely by expressing an opinion, but only by providing proof through verifiable sources that substantiate notability. Otherwise the comments might just as well not have been written. I would ask the closing admin also to comment on this, if s/he feels it appropriate, for the benefit of contributing editors, as the problem is not restricted to this AfD. Tyrenius 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep is notable, and bad faith nom Brian | (Talk) 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again somebody has said it is notable but they don't say how or provide any evidence for it, also this man is a member of this orgRepublicUK 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but I can assure you I am not a member, as I am interested in politics that relate to New Zealand and the Commonwealth, I don't deny I watch with interest what they say (on their Forum etc) but I have never been involved in any business of this Society Brian | (Talk) 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RepublicUK, you really should back up a claim like that with evidence, or else you shouldn't make it at all. Brian, unfortunately we have already established that this organization is not notable. Please review Wikipedia:Notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course I disagreed, however independent sources do seem to be a bit hard to find, perhaps this could be deleted for now, with the view to recreate, when the org comes more notable. I'll change my !vote to Keep Brian | (Talk) 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He just admitted he is registered on their forum, according to the FCS or UCS as they seem to be calling themselves now, that makes him a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs)

Really? if thats the case I shall e-mail the admin now, and get my form registration removed, I can sure you, I have no conflict of interest here, however do you RepublicUK? do you want this article deleted because it is in conflict with your views? Brian | (Talk) 05:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would it be in conflict with my views?RepublicUK 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comments This bickering is quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it is in accord with anyone's views or in conflict with them. All that matters is whether it meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, namely whether WP:N can be established with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Good editors do not let their personal views dominate their editorial role. Tyrenius 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it has been decided that it is not notable, why hasn't it been deleted?RepublicUK 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because you've made a mess of the AfD and overwritten the first one. This needs to be sorted out. Tyrenius 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't create this page, I merely nominated the article. I beleive it was someone called 'kafziel' who started this page so don't get bitchy with me, take it up with them'RepublicUK 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been established?--Counter-revolutionary 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I have awaited nearly two weeks before !voting on this one. The article has not been improved in that time nor has verifiable information regarding the Society from anywhere other than their own website.--Vintagekits 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to have generated any non-trivial news coverage. Wickethewok 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Ragib 07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Despite the immense amount of bickering, the answer to the main issue, which is does this article meet WP:ATT and WP:NOTE? is No. If those who are arguing so passionately for it to be kept would simply provide those sources, this AfD would be over. The fact that so far that hasn't happened is rather illuminating. EliminatorJR Talk 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of reliable sources per EliminatorJR. Huon 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 5. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP, WP:ATT and due to the mentions on membership and how to join Wikipedia:Spam. If someone tidies the whole article up and provides some reliable sources I will reconsider. Nuttah68 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've tried the 'tidy up' part. let me know, if you don't mind, if I did that well enough (It is a separate issue from Notability, which I don't think I can help them with). Bo 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - all the links in the article are to sites affiliated with the organisation, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability. Although the article asserts notability and the organisation looks like it might pass WP:N, it will have to be deleted unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:19, 9 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Commonwealth_Society&oldid=1136112113"