Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Progressive Association

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 no consensus. czar ⨹ 11:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Progressive Association

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORG. No independent sources nor even assertion of notability; despite which speedy deletion was declined. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disgusting example of tag bombing, I'll be back to fix that tomorrow when I have time to edit. This organization has a NAMED ARCHIVAL COLLECTION at Northeastern University in Boston, 12 linear feet, which is pretty big. And yes, the historical abstract attached to that collection is significant published independently-produced content counting towards GNG. I have to go to work, more latter. This topic is going to be an easy GNG pass, I think. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THIS 2014 piece from the Boston Globe deals substantially with one of the activities of the CPA and counts towards fulfillment of GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment Carrite makes a pretty compelling case to keep on the face of it, but I've relisted for a week just in case anyone has any other comments to make on this. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Morris, it's been a week and I think some of the templates (e.g. delete) can be removed. -Reagle (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2015 (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.