Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand


 * 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   keep. The issue of merging/redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Academic research unit with no obvious notability. Two sentences in a reliable source is the best I've found. Nothing obvious in google. Undoubtedly some of those associated with the unit are notable, but notability is not inherited. If the article is kept, a number of claims about living people need to be sourced or removed. PROD removed with comment "It's all true, but needs to be better referenced" Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a long-established and influential research unit in the NZ policy scene. Completely agree it may well need to be cleaned up and unsourced claims removed, but it is very definitely notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you care to provide sources as evidence of this? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of references at GNews, more potential references at GBooks and GScholar. Seems to be a notable, maybe even important, think tank (at least for New Zealand).  (See, p.60.) Clean up any problematic BLP comments, but don't delete it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree there are plenty of references in those places. However, none of them are the indepth coverage required by CORP. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a possible keep. It should not be deleted outright but instead redirected and partially merged to Victoria University of Wellington. That section is of the Vic Uni article is sorely in need of some prose about all of the organisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe that this is NZ's leading (only?) centre for defence studies. Searching for it in the New Zealand Herald and www.stuff.co.nz  reveals lots of stories where members of this centre have provided comments on security and defence issues. As such, I think that WP:ORG is met, though I do agree that a clean up is in order. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued as to how you think it meets WP:ORG, when that page specifically says that notability is not inheritable from employees to their organisations. Perhaps you could explain futher? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they are quoted specifically because they are members of the organisation, not because they're individually significant separately from the organisation. Stuartyeates, please cool it: you've got Kiwis and Aussies who know about these things quoting you chapter and verse - will you please stop trying to wikilawyer ? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly my reasoning: the academics are being asked for comments because of where they work. In addition to my earlier comment, a quick search of the National Library of New Zealand's catalogue for "Centre for Strategic Studies" turns up quite a few scholarly works published by this centre. This centre isn't world famous like, say, Chatham House, but it's notable. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason I hadn't mentioned those extensive publications yet was I thought they might have been attacked as being connected-with-the-organisation itself, and thus inadmissable. Nick, would you mind helping me list the major ones? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally, yes, but this week I'm going to be really busy. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Buckshot and Nick-D, appears to satisfy WP:ORG. Anotherclown (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge as the organisation appears to be fading into obscurity, being now a minor part of University Faculty. The publications listed appear to fade away once you get into the 2000's. The more recent articles don't seem particularly significant in themselves, and there is nothing in the article that points to it being significant, notable, or influential either now or previously. In addition the paragraphs titled History and Directors are repetitious, which suggests that there is little to write about. NealeFamily (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (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.