Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkeley Model United Nations

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 redirect to Model United Nations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Model United Nations

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

Model united nations student organization no indication of notability comapred to any other Chapter of a Model UN fails WP:GNG Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a chapter, but a contest, and one of the oldest and biggest of its kind. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual examples of Model United Nations are generally not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one seems to be notable on its own. Model United Nations does describe it as the first high school model un, but didnt link to this article, which it does now. 4.8 k hits on google, not many on scholar/books. not bad. i wonder if the other notable examples at the main article should have their own articles as well, eventually?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Model United Nations, which already has information about this event so no merge is needed. This may be the oldest or original MUN conference, but that doesn't make it individually notable without significant coverage - which this does not have. A clear case for WP:CLUB: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Model United Nations at this time (maybe more sources will be fouthcomming) not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- there is insufficient notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source for a separate article. N2e (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2010 (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.