Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kokoda Track Foundation


 * 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 without prejudice against speedy re-nomination. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 14:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The Kokoda Track Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable and obviously a big COI problem- article states "Our Work" etc. Lixxx235 (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per above --Lixxx235 (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Keep without prejudice- article has been significantly improved, but could use a lot of work, I can see this article being relisted in a month though. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 14:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd declined restoring this when it came up at WP:REFUND and I had been concerned about the lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. It was initially deleted as copyright infringement and it's restored because the content was given up as fair use, but little to no of the promotional concerns were dealt with. As far as coverage goes, there really isn't any. This news story about one of the people involved is really the best that is out there. Everything else is either primary, trivial, or seems to be based mostly or entirely on press releases. I wish it was otherwise since they do seem to do good, noble work, but we can't keep articles because it'd be nice to do so- we have to have established notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Having edited the Kokoda Track article in the past, I happened to notice this AfD for a somewhat related article linked from there. I believe WP:NOTABILITY is sufficiently established by coverage in independent secondary sources – I'm seeing about a dozen journal articles here at Google Scholar, plus quite a few more at Google Books, mostly covering the KTF's role in sustainable/ecotourism along the track in PNG. It appears that much of the promotional content has been excised and I did some Wikification and expansion of the article. It still needs work, but I think it's worth retaining. Mojoworker (talk) 10:12, 1 June 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.