Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asociatia Radioamatorilor din Moldova

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. (X! · talk) · @958 · 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asociatia Radioamatorilor din Moldova

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG nothing in gnews and google mainly reveals mirror sites of WP article. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's a news item about the group under its English name (search for Moldova on the page): https://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/08/22/4/?nc=1 There are interesting snippets at a Google Books search: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22Amateur%20Radio%20Society%20of%20Moldova%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp This is a national association, not a local one, so I would give it the benefit of the doubt. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the google books search typical verifies its existence as a national organisation. hardly in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recommend expanding this afd into a summary judgement over the whole Category:International Amateur Radio Union member societies (98 pages). Articles like Amateurs Radio Algeriens or Unió de Radioaficionats Andorrans are no better then the Moldovan suspect, and I presume few of the rest are any better. Redirect them all to International Amateur Radio Union (the list of leagues is already there). That said, lack of editor interest in radio leagues is disappointing; I suppose hamheads haven't yet recognized that novel fad called internet. There's more than enough RS to expand every big radio league into a FAC-grade article but who would care to? NVO (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what is the point of deleting stubs for subjects that clearly have equivalent notability to Anglophone community equivalents. Deletion and concomitant destruction of potentially useful information reinforces the Wikipedia bias channelled by the unwillingness of many English-mother tongue users of Wikipedia to acknowledge the importance of of foreign institutions that are not routinely reported in the Anglophone media. Opbeith (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources in Moldovan and I will happily withdraw my nomination. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument/request is getting old. You should be aware by now AFD is not cleanup! Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 15:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Signs point towards this being able to meet notability guidelines, if sufficient references aren't provided in a couple days, my !vote will change to delete. RadioFan (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Exit2DOS2000. This series of AfDs, without waiting for a decision on the earlier forays, is unfortunately abusive, some overall decision should be made at International Amateur Radio Union as to how to deal with member societies: list in the main article, separate "List of" article, or series of stubs, perhaps in addition to the former. I favor the latter because, from time to time, independent reliable source may appear on a local club, and if the stub exists, there is a place to put the sourced information, more easily accessible to new and IP editors. In any case, because of the inherited notability due to being a national-level affiliate, the stubs should not be deleted, even if a decision is made against individual stubs, they would be redirected. --Abd (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Membership of IARU is sufficient for notability. A small article, and it could usefully be expanded, but that is not reason itself for deletion. Dsergeant (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2010 (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.