Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Coal Alliance (2nd nomination)


 * 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. policy is clear that mentions don't cut the mustard for notability but I'm happy to revisit this if someone can find some suitable substantial sourcing Spartaz Humbug! 11:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian Coal Alliance
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

my original nomination stands. nothing in gnews. nothing on Australian major news website www.news.com.au. found 2 hits on another newspaper. article only cites a submission this organisation made to an inquiry, that does not qualify as third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I have rewritten the article, removing the stuff that prompted the neutrality concerns and adding some inline references.  This organisation may only have 3 Google News hits], but Factiva has over 60, spanning from 2006 through to 2010.  Most of them may be from the local Central Coast Express, but there are nine hits from the Daily Telegraph, and even one from the Australian Financial Review. Few of them have much detail on the organisation, but the coverage is more than fleeting (often it is most of the article), so I believe it just meets the general notability guideline.  -- Lear's Fool 11:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wallarah 2 Coal Project as it is notable in the context of this project, not independently from the project. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect: Nowhere near enough coverage to justify a standalone article on this non-notable NIMBY group. Already mentioned on the Wallarah 2 Coal Project article. Groups like this tend to get a few google news results but it's usually as a passing mention in a news article which is actually about the development they oppose. Similarly, groups like this often get named in government publications about public enquiries &c, but again it's not in-depth coverage. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Bobrayner's dismissal of ACA seems a little over-enthusiastic, and coverage not just in newspapers but also in industry media like Coal Geology, International Longwall News, etc., the group's mobilisation of political support and the scope and professionalism of the Solokowski/Hayes submission at http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/pdf/wyonginquiry_submissions_coalalliance.pdf all suggest that the group is active and substantial enough to merit an article in its own right rather than simply be buried in the Project article. Opbeith (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the group being active or making great and professional submissions does not satisfy WP:ORG. This group fails to get indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so you're dismissing Coal Geology and International Longwall News  - I guess you'll take the same view of Parliament of New South Wales Hansard . Opbeith (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * a one line mention in International Longwall news and hansard is not indepth coverage. Yes this group opposes the project do we know much else like organisational history? LibStar (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't moved on from the demand for "third party coverage" to "indepth third party coverage". The point of my reference to the mentions in International Longwall News and Coal Geology was to demonstrate that the organisation was one that was considered to merit quoting at the level of industry coverage.  The reference to the Chikarovski inquiry submission (commended in a subsequent NSW Hansard) was intended to demonstrate the substantiality of the organisation's activity and achievements.  You pass over the reference indicating notability at a political level.


 * As often with Wikipedia what is expressly stated to be "a guideline" best treated with common sense appears to be applied as a rule. When I come across an issue about Wikipedia content I apply the common sense criteria - is the subject one on which it would be reasonable for me, as a curious but disinterested individual, to come to Wikipedia and hope to find information even of a very basic kind.  ACA is a subject of that kind.  The organisation continues to campaign on the significant current conflict between competing natural resource priorities in Australia, referred to in the NSW Parliament discussion.  Its activities go considerably beyond simple NIMBYism. Even though the article was one with very little substantial content, it was a starting point.  There was no pressing need to delete it as contentious or misleading.  I've now tried with the limited time at my disposal to expand it a little. There is scope for further relevant expansion. Opbeith (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in relaxing guidelines because it's a slippery slope that enables one to argue a number of things that are not notable. WP guidelines are well established. yes ACA has been mentioned in NSW Parliament but that was by one member and his views (especially as an independent) are purely his own on "second to none". Given that Mr Piper opposes this project, of course he supports ACA stance. I would like more independent sources than this, ie from a person/media outlet with no vested interest for/against the coal project. LibStar (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.