Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwis Against Seabed Mining


 * 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. Tone 13:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails WP:ORG, hardly any third party coverage. this article has existed for over 4 years yet hardly any improvement. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The organisation is not getting any national news coverage of late but that is no reason for deletion. Also, a Google news archive search does not necessarily give a full coverage of news. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * my reason for nomination is not lack of recent coverage. in fact google news goes back to about 1850. you have not actually provided any evidence of coverage as required for WP:GNG, so that weakens your keep argument. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources, no coverage. Clearly nothing of note going on --- sole keep vote to date admits non-notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A lack of recent activity is not a reason for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No but a lack of notability is. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete No evidence of notability, the only standard here.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, they are referenced in two publications I found via google Scholar, and are mentioned in a number of media source I found via google news archive. I think that this establishes notability. Awickert (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * many non government organisations/lobby groups/clubs can get 6 mentions in newspapers...but these articles more refer to this organisation being present rather than discussing "Kiwis Against Seabed Mining" in any depth. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unfortunately, the Keep proponents avoid actual policy reasons in their statements. Despite Awickert's assertion, existence /= notability.  In order to sustain an article, reliable sources discussing the organization in detail cannot simply be alleged to possibly exist somewhere out there; they must be produced.  Without them, the article must be deleted.    RGTraynor  06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, existence can be verified WP:V which is not the same as being notable WP:N. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Sure their existence can be verified, but their notability can't. No significant coverage, no notability.  Triplestop  x3  18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable per WP:ORG. First, the media coverage of this group is - or rather was - not significant. Second, I cannot ascertain one noteworthy thing they have accomplished. Location (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2009 (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.