Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Victorian Secular Lobby, Inc


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The Victorian Secular Lobby, Inc

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a non-notable, local, secularist organization. Article was created by the organization president after an external link to the organization was repeatedly added to (and then removed from) the "list of secularist organizations". The article is sourced mostly with non-independent sources. The only independent sources (rationalist.com.au and progressiveathiests.org) are trivial mentions. I have searched Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News for other mentions and nothing non-trivial comes up. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Association has been mentioned in the news (specifically 'The Age' newspaper), has contributed to the Victorian Parliaments select committees. Given that the organisation is the newest among secular groups in the country and that most of the activities involves lobbying politicians and sourcing reporters directly, it is perhaps not surprising that there is not as much media coverage. The article was only created less than 12 hours ago, so there is more content that needs to be added.


 * Perhaps it would also be good to get an expert on Victorian secular groups to contribute to this discussion.Lev Lafayette (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No claim to notability here at all, and press quotes and parliamentary submissions do not notability make. Heck, I personally come closer to meeting GNG than these people. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, if this is a new group that has not had much impact yet and not gotten the secondary sources required to push past the WP:GNG, then it shouldn't be the subject of an article yet. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:47, 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.