Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MESAC

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MESAC

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: "A sporting association of 6 schools. Does not meet notability criteria for organisations at WP:ORG". Repeated research has not revealed reliable third party sources that extensively document this organisation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not say anything on why it's important and fails WP:N and WP:ORG.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's an article about a sports conference and even though it only cited through 1st/2nd party sources, does not mean it's content doesn't matter Casperruegg (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sure, it's about a sports conference. A non-notable sports conference as far as I can see - certainly one that seems to fail any requirement for reliable secondary sources for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (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.