Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wellington VHF 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. SpinningSpark 22:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wellington VHF Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sufficient notability for a corp. No references. Only source its own website. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  13:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to NZART until there is enough WP:V material to justify a break-out article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. No need for merge or redirect, the existing sentence in NZART says it quite well about non-notable branches: Branches of NZART are generally radio clubs and related organisations, and are found across the country. Having a list of non-notable branches would be directory in nature. --Bejnar (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NMEDIA does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to amateur radio clubs. It would be keepable if enough reliable sourcing could be cited to get it past WP:GNG, certainly, but it's not entitled to keep a poorly sourced Wikipedia article just because it exists — and for added bonus, the content here is swaggering into POV/advertorial territory ("The Wellington VHF Group have established themselves as a forward-thinking, progressive organisation and are regarded as innovative and highly capable in their specialist field"). Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good afternoon (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Appears to be self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:01, 6 September 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.