Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlackCat Anarchist Collective


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BlackCat Anarchist Collective

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable group, now inactive, article even admits in the first line that the group is of limited importance - looks to me a bit like self-advertising, like a bulletin board post. Doesn't make the news when googled, just linked to by other protest groups. Rocklaw (talk)Rocklaw (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   —Rocklaw (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources (refs are all links to organizations named in the article), none appear to exist online, and none are likely to show up, given that the organization is inactive. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 12:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force article for deletion. — Skomorokh  confer 13:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I've added a couple of real refs and removed those that don't mention this group.- gadfium 20:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, group is defunct but that doesn't diminish notability in a historical context. How notable is this group? Lord Metroid (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:Doesn't seem notable at all, though I haven't tried searching too hard. This information may be best placed in an Anarchism in New Zealand article, in a subsection on contemporary anarchist activity.  It suffers as it's own article.  I've saved the text to my sandbox, should the Anarchist Task Force ever choose to use it for such a purpose.--Cast (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. While I'm sympathetic to their aims (and even know most of the admins of this group), they're of little importance even in New Zealand. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of organizations deletions.  --Lquilter (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources in the article aren't independent and the organisation had very little impact on New Zealand during its brief life. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real notability as demonstrated by coverage from reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. But it would be good to have them mentioned in a wider article, as Cast suggests. --Helenalex (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2008 (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.