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. –MuZemike 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDL Cambridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. This group fails WP:CHAIN, it's local activities are non-notable in encyclopedical terms and do not warrant a separate article. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also possible merge if there is some merit in that. Pretty much as nom., local activities don't need a separate article. DRosin (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable local branch of extremist fringe group. Quoting one of the referenced articles (I dont really think that student newspapers count as reliable sources) "A grand total of six flag-waving EDL members"; SIX? There are substantially bigger family outings every single day of the week. There is nothing of value to merge to English Defence League. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both student papers are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. The group is notable as it has been commented about by these third party sources, the number of persons on the protest is totally irrelevant in this context apart from being a matter to comment on in the article. WP:CHAIN does not apply, this is not a franchise but an example of an local extreme political group, additionally it is notable in it's own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by People4people (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The English Defense League itself might be notable (although I think it's a joke more than a real protest movement; their website says they "have a drink and then shout about the terrorists") but the Cambridge branch is very unlikely to be.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are just personal opinions, the notability guidelines only require the subject matter to be covered by a reliable third party source. Both the student papers meet the criteria of reliable sources under the guidelines.--People4people (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Pit-yacker Peridon (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete local branches of national groups aren't notable - if this were the case we'd have articles on Labour Party (Cambridge), Liberal Democrats (Cardiff), Amnesty International (Birmingham) etc etc. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't appear that the activities of the group are sufficient to merit their own article. Hash789 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article says it all, "[t]he Cambridge Division has been reported to have few members". —Osa osa 5 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and Pit-yacker

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.