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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Cause (Commonwealth)

[edit]

No evidence that this group is at all notable. The google hits refer to it (most refer to other things) are all from its own website. At best it's the obscure work of a handful of people who have little presence outside the internet. Stringops 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in Lexis-Nexis about such a group. Bucketsofg 21:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable Brian | (Talk) 03:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a surprise that this was nominated.RepublicUK 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The members of this organisation make it notable, all 4 of the most prominent republican movements in the commonwealth of nations. Here is some evidence of notability http://www.canadian-republic.ca/common_cause_media_release_04_06_05.html http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/news&events/news.htm http://www.republic.org.uk/commoncause/index.htm RepublicUK 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Are these constitute organizations themselves notable enough to have wikipedia articles? (I didn't see them on a quick look). Bo 14:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Answer Yep, at least the Canadian organization is listed, so.... Bo 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Comment If they answer to the question above is 'No' then I'd suggest that the aggregate isn't notable either. If the answer to the above is 'Yes', then I'd suggest that aggregate is also notable. Bo 14:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Component Organizations are Notable, the fact they feel it helpful to form an alliance, and have done so is also 'notable'. Bo 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This won't be notable until it's externally WP:ATTributable /Blaxthos 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep' the sponsorship is probably sufficient for N . DGG 02:01, 6 March 2007 (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.