Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumers' Institute of 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. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Consumers' Institute of New Zealand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG, due to the lack of reliable, third-party sources. Tagged as failing GNG for 4 years (!), time to settle this one way or another. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 10:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I looked for internet references to the organization and its magazine, Consumer. (yes, the magazine title ends with a period). I found only passing references with one exception. The Geek Zone website had a forum at http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=113982, which is a blog and cannot be used as a reliable source in this discussion. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 23:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Incubate I don't think any real effort has been put into finding sources here.  Almost every hit on both books and the web is finding something.  Just from reading the snippets I know that the company has existed since 1959 and was publicly funded up until 1988, which by itself proves that the company will be wp:notable once a few good references are documented.  The company has published many books.  But it is going to take more research, and the article currently fails WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing from incubate to keep since the WP:V problems in the article no longer rise to the level of WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I added some statements with citations, so now there are some sources. I feel that what I have added demonstrates that the subject of this article has received significant coverage in multiple publications which are independent of the subject, and for that reason, this article meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria and should be kept. However - I work for a sister organization of Consumer NZ - Consumer Reports in the United States. I know nothing about Consumer NZ and actually these kinds of organizations exist in many countries. I have a conflict of interest by Wikipedia community guidelines so the usual practice is for me to declare this when I edit articles which could be promotional and for me to ask other editors to put extra scrutiny on what I do. I actually am employed to share consumer information on Wikipedia - see WP:CONSUMER for some descriptions of what I do. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as the organisation is sufficiently notable in NZ. Often cited in the national media in regard to consumer issues. Article needs work. NealeFamily (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Change my vote from Delete to Keep - With the locating and adding of sources this article now has more to support it than just the organization's website. Bill Pollard (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per NealeFamily this organization is well-known within NZ. For example, here is a list of articles mentioning them in the NZ Herald (the country's largest newspaper). Their reports are often the subject of the article, and they are also consulted & quoted in an 'advisory' or 'authority' capacity. This would appear to satisfy WP:ORG. I'll rename the page as well, since it doesn't reflect the current title of the organization. —porges(talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the rename. Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2013 (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.