Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. This was a close one, but the Keep voters were more persuasive. MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

last AfD was no consensus but my own searches find a lack of in depth third party coverage to meet WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC) http://www.sciquest.org.nz/elibrary/edition/7455
 * Keep National body for Vet Nurses in NZ, 1720 results on Google, and they publish their own journal which is published on SciQuest. I would say they qualify for NotableDeathlibrarian (talk)
 * refer WP:GOOGLEHITS number of google results doesn't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Hope you don't mind me adding a wikilink to your nomination text. I suggest this article meets the notability threshold.  Schwede 66  18:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge with Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand. Enough information to meet notability but the article needs a tidy up NealeFamily (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete AND Redirect as this current article is noticeably hinting at promotional and is otherwise simply not convincing of an acceptable. This can be restarted if needed in the future, but a redirect is sufficient enough also. SwisterTwister   talk  05:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand, which will enhance that article. Source searches are not providing enough significant coverage to qualify a standalone article at this time. North America1000 23:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 17:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand. Quis separabit?  14:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG from sources already showing in the footnotes. If there is a merge to be, it should be from the smaller and weaker Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand piece to this one, not vice-versa. But who's gonna actually do the work? Carrite (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing the notability here.  For an organization that has been around for fifteen years, I would expect to see more in the way of significant third-party sourcing, but that's not the case here.  As for merging to Paraveterinary workers in New Zealand, I have no objection to a merge, but the proposed target seems to be in even worse shape than the instant article.  It starts out by telling us that veterinary nurses are not considered "paraveterinary" workers, but then proceeds to talk about them anyway.  By the way, I suspect there is an undeclared conflict of interest here -- the article's creator and chief contributor is a single-purpose account named LHarvey, and one of the members of the subject's executive board is a Laura Harvey (as seen |utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/About%20Us/Meet%20Your%20Executive%20-%20Officers.html&__utmv=-&__utmk=109919365 here).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * keep we normally keep the page on the major national association in each profession.  DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 5 June 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.