Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viva Managua Movement

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 Elections in Nicaragua#Municipal_election_results_1990-2004. Valid search target. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Managua Movement

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

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:ORG. Unreferenced since October 2006. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elections in Nicaragua#Municipal election results 1990-2004. A search for sources finds several probably reliable that confirm that this organisation did run a candidate for Mayor of Managua in 1996, taking advantage of what seems to have been a short-lived provision in Nicaraguan electoral law, who was expected to win but was in fact narrowly defeated. Seeing that Managua is both Nicaragua's capital and its largest city, it is not surprising that this organisation gets passing mentions when the electoral provision it used is discussed in accounts of the 1996 elections. However, the target article already gives every fact in this article in better context. The same also applies to Civic Association of Potosí, although that organisation won the corresponding election in Potosí (and actually has a cited source apparently confirming this) and therefore arguably has a better case for stand-alone notability. PWilkinson (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 6 July 2016 (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.