Talk:Red Cross Sint Maarten

Deletion discussion

I don't think it's fair to say that Red Cross St Maarten is a "small sub-national branch of a notable organization -- no basis for thinking its likely to be notable". Technically they are indeed a branch of the Netherlands Red Cross, but they function more or less independently and are registered as a separate entity under the laws of Sint Maarten that is an independent nation (within the Kingdom of the Netherlands). They are also quite an important actor in disaster response in the country, so I, for one, am for keeping this article and give other editors the opportunity to expand it! --Jestrandholm (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

Keep or merge. I recognise that it would be good if this article had sources that more clearly demonstrated that the subject met the general notability guidelines. But, like Jestrandholm, I wonder what the encyclopaedia gains from deleting this respectably referenced and encyclopaedic article on a non-profit organisation. If User:DGG is desperate to get rid of it, I'd suggesting merging with Netherlands Red Cross (which would benefit from some development). Also, I'm not sure, DGG, why you haven't put this article through the normal 'articles for deletion' process (see Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO). That would help ensure a fuller and fairer discussion. Alarichall (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Enough has been added that I'm fine with keeping. Or Merging would be fine with me. My basic idea is that though stub articles are necessary for some topics, they are better combined, especially for the branches of the smae fundamental organization. But it's a matter of preference, not conviction. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, DGG. Perhaps for future cases like that, though, you could propose merging rather than deleting? Obviously sometimes articles are just cynical promotion of non-notable for-profit companies and aren't suitable for the encyclopaedia, but since deletion proposals can be quite dispiriting for new editors, I think it would be good for us to minimise them. Alarichall (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Sometimes as a practical matter, for a merge opposed by a coi editor, an AfD is the solution (despite the guidelines that say otherwise, which in my opinion are obsolete and do not represent current practice). Sometimes I think AfD is the only working consensus procedure we have, but that may be due to my familiarity with it. But normally I do and should have recommended a merge first. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)