Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Coal Alliance


 * 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   no consensus. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 03:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Australian Coal Alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit. a non notable little community action group. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The curse of Google news strikes again. The crappy footnotes to this rather crappy WP article note other sources - were they checked? In any case, there are other news references to the group, such as in the Central Coast Express Advocate (this is just one example - there are other articles in that source). Also have found news items (not available through Google news) in the Daily Telegraph ("Anti-coal logo sparks a blazing row"), Newcastle Herald ("Bid for last of coalfield") and ABC Regional News ("October deadline for Wallarah 2 decision"). And those were just from the first page of hits using another search engine (not a free one). The results cover a three year period and do not all relate to a single event. This is a non-starter as an AfD I think, however pathetic or tagged the actual WP article might be. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage needs to be about them, not them commenting on something else. The central coast express is not about them, it just has them commenting on the subject of the article. "Anti-coal logo sparks a blazing row" just has a statement from their spokesman, it's not about them. "Bid for last of coalfield" only says "Australian Coal Alliance, which opposes the mine, has a commitment from the State Opposition to reject the mine and is pressuring the Labor Government to match the pledge." about them, not significant coverage. "October deadline for Wallarah 2 decision" only says "Wyong Shire Mayor Bob Graham, who is also a patron of the Australian Coal Alliance which is opposing the mine," about them, not significant coverage. From the article: "Coal mining inquiry near Wyong" just says "But campaign coordinator for the Australian Coal Alliance Alan Hayes told the Sydney Morning Herald that there was substantive and compelling evidence that the mine will impact on the integrity of the water catchment.", not significant coverage. "Voters' backlash looms against coal mine" just has their coordinator commenting about the mine proposal, it's not about them. "Residents fear coal dust will make them sick" is the best but looks like a local interest piece about the proposed mine and ACAs campaign to stop it. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't support a distinction that separates something being "about them" from something being "about their actions". An article that reports the views or actions of a group is about that group. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about the "about them" and "about their actions" being the same. Apart from the last article which I said was the best none go into any detail about their actions (a quote from their spokesman is not, IMO, significant coverage). Until I see any real coverage about them or their actions outside locl press (central coast express) I can not argue for the keeping of this page. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says "sources address the subject directly in detail". LibStar (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I am saying that when the activities of an organisation that go to its very reason for existing (in this case, to lobby etc in relation to an issue) are reported, then that "addresses the subject directly". I understand others have a different view, I'm just saying that that is mine. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.