Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Hillary Fellowship


 * 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. ✗ plicit  04:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Edmund Hillary Fellowship

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of notability. Could not find anything about this award save for run-of-the -mill listings. TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New Zealand.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an important fellowship that has sponsored many famous personalities and hence, definitely noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha3107 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * fame and importance were rejected as criteria in 2004. Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete (or even Speedy delete as A7) — I cannot find a single source that comes anywhere near to satisfying WP:GNG. If the creating editor is convinced this is notable, kindly point to the evidence. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply doesn't doesn't meet WP:GNG, let along WP:NORG. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep tom much of a stub to tell the story - a quick look on Google and it is covered in several national newspapers, along with announcements of a partnership with the New Zealand Government Immigration department. Absolutely agree it needs a lot of work to show all this, and may have a go at it shortly, but not tonight. NealeWellington (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks Neale. I will work on adding more content to it soon too. This page is mentioned in several famous personalities' pages like Naval Ravikant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha3107 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per Alisha3107. --Vaco98 (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep A credible fellowship many notable members. Not sure if it meets WP:NORG due to lack of citations from independent WP:RS but seems to meet WP:GNG. UphillAthlete (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lack of independent reliable sources is how something fails to meet that criterion. That said: are you going solely by what's in the article, without looking to see what sources are available?  Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of RS available. The article is just badly in need of an update and I don't have time at the moment to do so. NealeWellington (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2022 (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.