Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pobal (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Nom withdrawn/wp:speedy keep #1. (non-admin closure) Alyo (chat·edits) 14:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pobal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability. The sources cite Pobal's GIS data, but don't discuss the actual organization in any meaningful way. Not sure of a redirect target. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Coverage by various Irish newspapers would be sufficient for me to consider WP:NONPROFIT met, even without the additional book cites. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not notable? It's a government organisation. Surely that's enough. Ridiculopathy (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ridiculopathy, I believe that per WP:NONPROFIT there still needs to be some evidence of coverage by reliable sources. I could be wrong though--if others feel that the fact that POBAL is a national organization is sufficient, I'll withdraw the nom. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some pretty basic googling would reveal the reliable sources you seek, but I added some on to the page to spare you the bother. Ridiculopathy (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ridiculopathy, while I appreciate the work you are putting into the article, only one of the five sources (the Irish Examiner piece) you added would count towards the WP:general notability guideline. The others are non-independent/press releases. Those are the kinds of things I found when searching, which is why I believed it didn't meet notability requirements. Anyway, I'm looking over the sources that @Guliolopez added now and I think I'll probably withdraw this. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While not a slam dunk, I've found (and in many cases have added) several academic/book sources (which cover the subject's formation) and a number of news sources (which cover the organisation's purpose, development and oversight). While I'd rather see a book chapter/section dealing entirely with the subject, I'm not sure this is a clear-cut deletion. Certainly the relatively "generic" name (from an Irish perspective) doesn't help with searches. To the extent, I would note, that neither of the previous AfDs (linked above) have anything whatsoever to do with the topic now covered by this title. (This AfD was about a TV show. Not a govt agency. This is a school. Note also that the topic covered at "POBAL" is also unrelated. "Pobal" just means "community" or "people".) Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Guliolopez. It looks like Pobal will live to fight another day. Ridiculopathy (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2022 (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.