Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workers Development Union

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 no consensus. I think arguments for keeping and deleting are about evenly matched and cancel each other out. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Development Union

Workers Development Union (edit | 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A charitable educational organisation with 42 staff is likely to be notable. If this were a one-man band or a local church, I would certain concur in deletion, but it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOURCESMUSTEXIST, ILIKEITVERYMUCH......∯WBG^converse 17:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And add such newspapaer articles as this and this as well as this very substantive article from Shramik Abhivrudhi Sanghin.
  AfD. [reply
  ]
  • Two time the same link, just telling that they sold wool and have a project about wool. The last "source" just gives one (1) link to Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh and nothing more. The Banner talk 01:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no notable Ghits that prove it passes
  WP:NORG. Also written like an advertisement, tagged it as such if consensus is keep. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as it does have some substantial coverage in reliable sources such as The Hindu, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence? The Banner talk 18:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Banner, A306 has a reputation of being atypically nonsensical as to the issue of gauging significance of coverage and stand-alone-ness of an article from the available source(s). ∯WBG^converse 17:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ADHOM commenting on other editors is your hallmark and the easy option instead of ever finding any reliable sources at all, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Certainly.They can't be found where they don't exist.∯WBG^converse 08:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had already noticed that he has a special relationship with the policies and guidelies regarding sources. And I have also noticed that, although he wants reliable sources, he nearly never presented that type of sources himself. The Banner talk 20:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, a Google search for "Workers Development Union" yields 58 results and none of them provide anything more than a passing mention including the soruces provided above by the creator and most of them are not even reliable so fails
  WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete--A single HT piece do not make-th notability.Per GSS.∯WBG^converse 17:15, 10 September 2018 (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.