Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NukeWatch


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @199  · 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

NukeWatch

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

Non notable minor UK protest grouping. Even if was notable, Article has major WP:POV and WP:ADVERT issues. Prod removed 02/07/09. Archivey (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Difficult to confirm non-notability because GNews is buried under news of a US group of the same name. In the article, there are three sources: one directory listing all organisations (doesn't count), their own webpage (doesn't count) and an article about them in a local paper. That's not enough. Show me sustained coverage in the local press or articles about them in the national press and I may change my mind. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Nom. Some random UK people protest against 'the bomb'. Not notable or exactly Greenpeace. Agree there are POV value statements in article too. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CLUB Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quick Google search gives:, and whilst they aren't all-encompassing-low-down-on-this-particular-group kind of sources I'd definitely suggest that if people like The Guardian and The Independent are going to you for a quote it's at least an indication of notability. Some more digging will probably yield more sources (maybe print rather than web). Issues like POV can be dealt with via a clean-up and aren't a definitive reason for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dylanfromthenorth. Have improved wording and added another reference to the article. Johnfos (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable fringe group. When this group (not other groups with same name) get significant coverage in multiple sources (per WP:GNG) then they can have an article. Verbal   chat  19:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the references I've given refer to this group not any others as far as I'm aware Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another non notable group of left wing useful idiots. Source even says they dont have a formal structure. They seem to do nothing more than tail UK Warhead convoys that are public domain anyway...maybe merge with CND. Estragons (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it matter whether they're left or right wing? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Verbal here. Crafty (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage in national newspapers, as linked by Dylanfromthenorth, is more than sufficient to meet WP:N. Artw (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Faction of CND.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.118.27 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 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.