Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivors' Insurance (Industry, etc.) Convention, 1933 (shelved)

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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors' Insurance (Industry, etc.) Convention, 1933 (shelved) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded after expiry because apparently it was prodded before, but I did not see a previous prod at the time. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As far as I can tell, nobody who has ever edited this article included an explanation of what this convention declared or what it means for it to have been shelved. The text includes a quotation, "Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to compulsory widows' and orphans' insurance,..." which is an incomplete sentence and doesn't give any indication of which proposals were adopted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's a consensus to redirect the article, I'm giving this discussion another round since there are two redirect targets indicated above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 05:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No evidence of notability. Furthermore, there is not only no consensus to redirect, a redirect wouldn't be appropriate even if there was, per WP:XY: there's no obvious redirect target that precludes the other. Ravenswing 11:35, 31 January 2022 (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.