Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pineapple Group


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Pineapple Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested CSD A7, does appear to have quite a few media hits. Tawker (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable group. Non-trivial, independent support for group is lacking. red dog six (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not delete - This article should not be deleted. The group is featuring in media at present. The group and its activities have been discussed on a number of occasions in the Queensland parliament. - Health4102

Do not delete For links to numerous non-trivial independent support of the group: http://www.allnewsau.com/term/Pineapple+Group The group is big news in the Australian state of Queensland at the moment. The group is involved in a dispute that is threatening the entire public health service there. Health4102 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Health4102 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)  — Health4102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - None of the references are non-trivial in nature. red dog six  (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not delete  As a UK physician, I came to Wikipedia to obtain a more balanced account of this group's activities. I largely got this, though I do wish that even more information were available and I look forward to the article being augmented in the coming weeks. Certainly, I think that it would be a pity to delete the entry because a buzz outside of the group's home nation of Australia is certainly building. Wide and continuing interest is thus likely. Media outlets seem to be portraying divergent and polar views that are probably based on unstated agenda. It is in cases such as this that Wikipedia has an especially important role to play.


 * Comment - None of this a valid Wikipedia reason to keep the article.  red dog six  (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (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.