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) - Nahal ^(T) 10:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Congress of Chiropractic State Associations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Ineligible for PROD due to previous AFD. Does not meet organisation notability criteria. SITH (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I see no reason to overturn the previous AFD. Simply stating that the article "Does not meet organisation notability criteria" is not helpful, what part of that guideline or how does it apply? Further, a quick google search shows that the organization is covered in the news on some level and therefore seems to pass WP:GNG. Plus, articles on national medical organizations such as this one are normally kept. I don't see any policy violation. It's a stub.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's a tiny stubby article but it's notable. Previous AfD remain keep votes still apply. I'll put it on my list of articles that need attention. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 20:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• @ Wizardman, Leoniceno, Cameron, Stormbay, Peterkingiron, and Spartaz: Ping previous AFD participants. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 21:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:DELAFD vexatious renomination Lightburst ( talk) 22:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I do think people here have oversold how notable this organization is and the importance of the last AFD. The last discussion was a lightly-attended AFD from more than 10 years ago where literally half the !votes were to delete. The closer explicitly stated that it was hung either way, so it wasn't exactly a boat of confidence that the article didn't see any improvement until less than a week ago.
  Even though I tried contributing to the article, I wasn't really sure this passed WP:GNG until after Semmendinger's recent additions. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 01:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I see no reason to overturn the previous AFD because the latest discussion more than 11 years ago.- Nahal ^(T) 09:39, 4 December 2019 (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.