Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights of St Columba

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of St Columba

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel WP:BEFORE wasn't performed. With a quick glance, a lot material appears in searches. Have a look at this book, albeit not a perfect WP:RS, gives clear notability indications. [1] is clearly indepth coverage, published by Gill and Macmillan. --Soman (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response, I did a before search for references and Betty's Travel Journals is not even close to sufficient... As for [2] this is the wrong organisation, the Knights of St Columba should not be confused with the Knights of Columbus and Knights of Saint Columbanus which are notable organisations. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: although it is a borderline case for notability, if you dig enough there is enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG: the Independent, the Times, the York Press, and the BBC. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:00, 7 August 2024 (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.