Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kauaian Institute


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Kauaian Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lots of sources, but none which are clearly reliable proof of substantial coverage. Created by WP:SPA WP:COI creator years ago - has been tagged for lack of notability for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Deletion spree.  Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * [off-topic comments refactored to the talk page of an AfD with nearly identical comments, WT:Articles for deletion/Hindi Pa Tapos Ang Labada Darling Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)]


 * Delete Not notable; in a search I found a couple of passing mentions at the Pacific Business News, plus one actual article from the same source, which is already cited in the article and is the ONLY significant independent source in the article. FYI, since the references in the article are not properly cited and you have to click on each one to find out what it is, here is a summary:


 * 1. 2003 article from Pacific Business News specifically about this institute.
 * 2. bio of founder, from the website of "Economics for Equity and Environment", whatever that is.
 * 3. link to another project founded by same individual; unrelated to current subject
 * 4. self referential
 * 5. self referential
 * 6. shows research from the Institute reproduced on a Kaua'i government website
 * 7. dead link
 * 8. newspaper op-ed by the Institute's director
 * 9. dead link
 * 10. dead link
 * 11. press release
 * 12. dead link

There is nothing here to suggest that the article is worth keeping, and that's not surprising; it's a recently founded and very narrowly focused institute. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:55, 9 September 2014 (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.