Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NORG -- organization has not "received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." Two of the references here are self-published, the other three do not mention the subject. ubiquity (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Your claim does not appear to be correct, because when I look, I do find "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization". I have added a couple of refs to the article. You should ensure that what you claim is in fact correct, and that may require looking for yourself, and not just reading the article.  Schwede 66  02:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily I don't like to reply to points made in a deletion discussion, but since you're calling me to task for lack of diligence, I feel I must reply. I have to disagree with you about what you think is "significant coverage." I did look for myself, and didn't find any significant coverage of the organization itself. The two articles you added mention the organization only in passing. One is a local article about a nurse who wins an award, and the other is a piece about overweight pets. This is a national organization, and if they're notable, I'd expect to see some national coverage of them and their activities. ubiquity (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * delete completely lacking in depth third party coverage. The added source http://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/cutestuff/72997202/A-third-of-pets-in-New-Zealand-are-overweight is not about the organisation as the subject.  LibStar (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notable per Schwede66. Satisfies GNG. There are also a number of relevant sources in GBooks (eg "McCurnin's Clinical Textbook for Veterinary Technicians" and the periodical "Veterinary Technician" (eg volume 22 at p 296; but bear in mind that because this is a periodical, you have to search each volume separately because the main search engine only shows one result for all volumes no matter how many volumes of the periodical contain mentions) and GScholar (there are relevant results on the fourth and fifth pages of results). National public bodies are generally notable. The NZVNA sources are non-independent, not self-published. As a plausible redirect to Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand with mergeable content, deletion of this page would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments: To me, when organization X creates and deploys a website for themselves, that's self-published. But the point of self-published is that it's non-independent, so I'll accept that they are merely non-independent. In my opinion they still don't meet WP:NORG. WP:NORG (specifically WP:NGO) says:
 * Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
 * The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
 * The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

It's the second criterion about which I am complaining.

That said, I would happily accept a redirect to and possible merge into Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand. ubiquity (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * funny that you are stumbling at the same AfDs I've been involved in... again. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to stop following me, it's no coincidence you've turned up at most AfDs I've been recently involved in. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well that this is on the organisations deletion sorting list, and stands out on that list like a sore thumb as an egregiously bad nomination. You need to stop making off topic comments, making personal attacks, oppose badgering, trying to intimidate editors who disagree with you, and trying to assert ownership of AfDs that you did not even start. This nomination of the professional body of an entire profession throughout an entire country is a particularly inappropriate policy violating one. We are never going to delete this when we can redirect and merge it to the parent article. Why don't you try addressing that? James500 (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * thought you weren't going to answer me. There are hundreds if not thousands up for deletion at any point in time how you consistently turn up at the same AfDs in a short space of time is beyond coincidence. Your long winded excuse making fools no one. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This one wasn't even an organisation sorted AfD Articles for deletion/Patrick Lawless only Australian listed,  unless you have a sudden interest in Australian AfDs or more logically just looked at my edit history.  LibStar (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin James500 has also followed me around recently at the following AfDs: Articles for deletion/Leicester International Short Film Festival first to comment prior to any deletion sorting, Articles for deletion/Diego José Tobón Echeverri first to comment and Articles for deletion/Patrick Lawless James500 is not known to recently participate in Australian listed AfDs . And another one Articles for deletion/Armenia–Philippines relations (2nd nomination). No coincidence turning up to all these AfDs that I've been in LibStar (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The above comments are irrelevant and inaccurate. James500 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * fact: you participated in these AfDs on disparate topics after I either listed them or !voted in them. Anyone can look at these AfDs and see if I am 100% accurate in saying this. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fact: One of them I found on the PRODLIST, the others are bilateral relations articles (not disparate at all). All you've proved is that we have similar interests. James500 (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * fact : you commented on the film festival before it was deletion sorted. Patrick Lawless was not listed in bilateral listing. Look forward to the excuses for this. LibStar (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The festival was on my watchlist after removing the PROD. As for Patrick, I normally participate in bilateral relations articles, as you well know. This is not an appropriate venue for making allegations about other editors. And since editors can legitimately follow each other to enforce policies, it seems to me that the allegations you are making are not in of themselves actionable in any venue. James500 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Patrick was not sorted as a bilateral article so you did not find the AfD via deletion sorting. Out of the thousands listed you simply came across it... LibStar (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that I might have reached it through the "ambassadors of australia" category, and that I might now be watching all of them? I am correct in thinking that there is a WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR campaign to smash up all bilateral relations articles, am I not? And another WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR campaign to smash up all Australia/Oceana articles? And are you following HoldenV8 around? And have you ever followed anyone else around in the past? James500 (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The unbelievable excuses keep coming and how did you find the catacombs in Malta AfD? That topic is not related to bilaterals nor was prodded. It's obvious you've been following me in AfDs and the more weak long winded excuses you make the more obvious it is. I know you can't resist and will give a minimum 500 character reply. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And ironically you found HOLDENV8 by following my edit history, as there is zero evidence of any previous interaction between you 2 in any article. Expect a rich mobile edit 500 character convoluted response now. Can you resist? LibStar (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am too tired to argue with the substance of your baseless complaints. Your reaction to disagreement seems to consist of this: scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, scream, endlessly for hours, and sometimes much longer. LibStar, quite frankly, it does not matter how I found the Malta catacombs AfD, which failed spectacularly, because that nomination was massive WP:CIR, consisting of a complete inability on your part to use a search engine properly. You should be apologising to the community for your incompetence in bringing that nomination. Your argument seems to consist of "LibStar violated a policy, and James500 called out the violation, but James500 would not have been aware of the policy violation if he had not looked at LibStar's contribs, so James500 has been a naughty boy" and that is not a valid argument. The correct argument is of course "Libstar violated a policy, therefore LibStar is a naughty boy". Now I will ask again: have you been following HoldenV8? (I know for a fact that you have, and I would like to know what you think the difference is. I think you know perfectly well that complaining, in essence, that I am enforcing policies and guidelines is not actionable). James500 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As expected a long winded excuse ridden answer. We both know you've been following my edit history to find AfDs I've involved in and ironically you used my edit history to find Holden. It does matter how you found the catacombs afd because it is an unrelated topic as part of a broader pattern of following me. By sheer confidence that's about 7 AfDs in last 2 weeks you've commented after me. Only 2 were listed as bilateral del sort. let me guess another 500 character plus response coming up. Can you resist? LibStar (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and if you are getting tired why respond in a long winded fashion? If you're tired suggest you take a break from Wikipedia for a few weeks. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are driving me round the bend. Can you point to an occasion on which I was not enforcing a policy or guideline? Answer: no. Can I point to you violating policies and guidelines? Answer: lots of times. End of. James500 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I refer to my previous response. Suggest you take a WP:WIKIBREAK. even you know the benefits of avoiding the mental, physical and financial anguish of typing all those extra keystrokes. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * as for violating, you've been building up a good case for the last 2 weeks for wikihounding. Please now resist the temptation to respond. LibStar (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot hound someone by enforcing policies. Even if I was following you, which I am not. I suggest you work on your WP:CIR issues. James500 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC) The only one doing harassment here is yourself by subjecting me to an epic blinding tantrum and screaming fit that absolutely will not shut up. James500 (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I told you on 7 February that I object to you following me around yet this behaviour has continued if not worsened last 2 weeks. Your weak excuse making just makes it more obvious. Of course you can prove to me you're not following me in AfDs by not commenting on the next 20 AfDs I will be in. Then I will fully believe you. LibStar (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What you propose would violate WP:OWN. You could for example make twenty policy violating nominations that you know I would find objectionable. But let me make a counter offer. I've told you I object to violations of policies and guidelines. If you refrain from violating policies and guidelines, I would have no reason to interact with you, and it would please me enormously to avoid you like the plague. Will you agree to refrain from violating policies and guidelines? James500 (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * as long as you refrain from wikihounding including contacting other editors I've had disagreements with and you've had zero previous interaction on Wikipedia. And you admit you've been finding things from my edit history and won't do so in future. Then we have a deal and can move on. Ball is in your court. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing the way you interact with others that disagree you, you enormously enjoy disagreement to the point of following someone, so much for saving keystrokes. LibStar (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your agreement to refrain from violating policies and guidelines. I should not need to confirm this but ... I will not wikihound anyone. Deal concluded. Goodbye. James500 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the Merge or Redirect as suggested by Ubiquity - there is insufficient for two articles on the same topic NealeFamily (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Paraveterinary workers wiki page is outdated and incorrect. It really needs to be deleted, as veterinary nurses are not paraveterinary workers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.208.16 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2016 (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.