Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Providence Teachers 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 Delete per the below, and WP:CSD#A7 - the article fails to assert the notability of the group. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Teachers Union

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

The subjects fails to meet the notability guidelines for an organization, per WP:ORG. Specifically, please note the section on local chapters, which are generally not notable unless significant attention has been paid by reliable sources outside the chapter's local area. Providence Teachers Union does not demonstrate such notability. WP:ORG also states organizations that are not at least national in scale may not notable unless thye have received significant attention, again, from third party sources outside the local area. Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals also seems to fail to demonstrate such notability. (see related AFD)

Both are local affiliates of much larger, more notable unions and organizations, however in my opinion they are not deserving of their own articles. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nn-group. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Whether or not the topic is noteworthy or not can't be established because there's really no content in this article. Maybe it a good topic, maybe not. But WP readers don't lose anything by getting rid of this very stubby stub.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:37, 15 January 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.