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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity (Australia)

[edit]

This had been a re-direct, which was recently changed. SoWhy declined my speedy for a good reason, but I disagree that notability is inherited from a previous group which merged to form this one. While a search is hard because there are many things mentioning the concept of solidarity in Australia, I find no evidence this group is notable. Perhaps either ISO needs to be moved to this title and Solidarity should be a section of that. But there's no evidence this group is independently notable. Since it's controversial, I've brought it here. StarM 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to explain the declined speedy: They are probably not notable but imho the fact that one of their previous groups was indicates importance/significance and thus fails A7. Regards So Why 12:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this raises some interesting questions, to which I have no answers. Firstly, regarding the inheritance of notability: if the ISO was notable, since Solidarity is substantially the same organisation, and in fact larger than the ISO, even if it has not done anything public that makes it notable, it seems reasonable to presume that it will be soon enough; I can't say whether this is sufficient to merit keeping the stub, though, since I don't know what the standard practice would be in such situations, though this must be a situation which has arisen before. The second issue, which I already raised on the article's discussion page, is whether the ISO article should be moved to this page. Certainly I think either we should keep this page OR move the ISO article: what I think would be absurd would be to keep the ISO article while refusing to have an article on the successor organisation. mgekelly 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the murky world of Trot groupscles, the ISO is quite notable. Therefore this unity project is too. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What's the point of deleting an article that provides Wikipedia-searchers with current information about the successor organisation to an organisation deemed notable in the past? Surely the purpose of Wikipedia administration is not to deprive the user of potentially useful information? Opbeith (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. It does inherit notability from its predecessor organisations; to suggest otherwise without reason is a bit ridiculous IMO. Rebecca (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2009 (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.