The Marches Local Enterprise Partnership: Does not meet WP:NORG, lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources .  Many sources are based on press release material and feature quotes from for example the Chairperson.  Here's some better sources to consider.  Research paper by the Industrial Strategies Council [8] .  Article in The Business Magazine [9] .  Some editorial content, but relies to an extent on Chairperson's comments [10] .  Others [11] , [12] , profile but not totally independent [13] , a little criticism [14] , its launch [15] .  It will be interesting to see whether the press features an independent appraisal of the LEP following its forthcoming closure.  Rupples ( talk ) 18:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Local enterprise partnership - On keep/delete, it is not a spammy business, for which NCORP rightly sets a high bar, but strictly speaking NCORP applies, so there is a touch of IAR about a keep ! vote.  I considered a weak keep, and I considered not voting at all and just hoping for a no consensus, as IAR is usually a bad argument at AfD.  And, to be clear, if someone can make a strong argument as to why this should or should not be here, I'll reconsider.  But to the specifics: Rupples provides a number of links, presented suitably critically (with thanks to Rupples).  The first link is actually pretty good.  The "Understanding the policy-making processes behind local growth strategies in England" studies the issues and contains a significant mention of this.  It  comes close to WP:SIRS as it is significant, independent, reliable and... well... it is actually primary in that it is research.  The mention of the LEP is arguably secondary inasmuch as it is about the LEP - but that is debatable in fact.  So it's good, but not perfect and not multiple, of course.  Most of the others run into issues of primary sourcing, being news, or independence, as Rupples already noted.  So by the strict standards of NCORP, we are not there.  If we went with GNG, where sources "should" be secondary, we are in a greyer area.  The point being that there are sources from which an article could be written, although not much information.  Looking at the article itself, it's a bit of a disaster.  It says almost nothing, and the list of towns is rather pointless.  I think it comes down to WP:PAGEDECIDE .  I would very very weakly favour keeping this over deletion, but ultimately the reader will be best served by just reading about the whole concept of LEPs.  This page adds nothing beyond that, and, as things stand, could not add much if anything that could not simply enhance the LEP page.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Local enterprise partnership .  Difficult deciding what to recommend here, but concur with the comments made by Sirfurboy.  There's insufficient independent indepth sourcing to satisfy relevant notability criteria.  This could change should an independent appraisal(s) akin to an obituary be published after the Partnership is wound up on 31 March 2024.  [16] If there is, the article could be rewritten and reinstated, but if not it's better left as a redirect.  Rupples ( talk ) 11:39, 17 March 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.

Discussion outcome: redirect