Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grassroots Left

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. Sole keep vote does not provide adequate reasoning to be seriously considered. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grassroots Left

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

fails WP:ORG, article has existed for almost 4 years with not one citation. no real third party coverage of this [1]. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Timeshift (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have been unable to uncover any secondary coverage in the link LibStar provided above. Cunard (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article or elsewhere suggests notability. We are told "Grassroots Left is a small political grouping...", and nothing suggests it is a significant small political grouping. There are no citations. A web search finds that most hits for "Grassroots Left" refer not to this group, but more generally to leftists who regard themselves as representing the "grass roots"; of the hits which do refer to this group, none that I have seen is both independent and more than a minor mention. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find sources that verify that the group exists (e.g. this article [2]), but none which amount to the 'significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources' which is required for notability. Robofish (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I would note that there are other articles on Australian student politics that are equally poorly referenced - e.g. Student Unity, Independents (Australian NUS faction). If this is deleted, perhaps they should be next to be examined for notability. (Australian Liberal Students' Federation would appear to be the exception - the rest should be as well-referenced as that one.) Robofish (talk) 22:12, 22 August 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.