Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labor Environment Action Network


 * 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   redirect to Australian Labor Party. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Labor Environment Action Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about an organisation tat lacks significant coverage that would establish notability. All but two of the sources are from the organisation's web site. The two non-primary sources do not establish notability as one is a guest post in the newspaper from the a member of the organisation, and the second is about that same person's plan to run for political office. My own searches fail to turn up reliable sources covering the organisation; just more mentions. Whpq (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect is okay, although Keep also okay. (revised from simply Keep, by me, given later suggestion of a redirect target) The "news" Google search above yields numerous mentions.  This 2011 Sydney Morning Herald article mentions that a review of the Australian Labor Party specifically called for the Labor Environment Action Network to be given a formal role within the party.  Their role in the network is often cited for various persons who were "co-convenors" or had other roles in the network.  Seems to me that Wikipedia readers would be served by having a short reference article, and that there is enough coverage for an article. -- do  ncr  am  18:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Mentions are not significant coverage. And the specific article you linked to is in fact a copy of a speech given by Doug Cameron (politician), a member of the Australian Labour Party, so it does not represent independent coverage, and as an added bonus, it's also a single bullet point mention in the speech so even that fails to be significant. -- Whpq (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not imply it was independent of the Australian Labor Party; the mention was within a review of/by the Australian Labor Party, yes, which has to be internal to the party, and it was mentioned of course by a Labor Party person, yes.  However, the network is not a branch of the party itself;  per the wikipedia article it is affiliated, in that it is trying to change the Labor party.  Note to be a member of the network you don't have to be a member of the Labor party.  And the network is seeking more influence in the Labor party, sure, but it is not a part of it per se.  It's certainly relevant to cover the fact that the Labor party is considering giving it more of a role.  Whatever.  Nonetheless, I don't mind a redirect terribly. -- do  ncr  am  18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Australian Labor Party. Pax 02:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect - concur that Australian Labor Party is an obvious target. There isn't sufficient coverage to pass GNG/CORPDEPTH and certainly doesn't appear to be enough to sustain a stand-alone article. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 06:24, 25 January 2015 (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.