Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"New Environmentalist"

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. LFaraone 13:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"New Environmentalist"

"New Environmentalist" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable - searches only turn up the subject's own webpage, no sources to prove assertion of notability. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-notability is not a reason for deletion (it needs to declare why it's important or significant) however I say delete as it ain't got any secondary sources.--Launchballer 12:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment @Launchballer: ??? If something isn't notable, it should not have an article. That's a perfect reason for deletion... @hmssolent: why an AfD? Why not save everybody time with an A7 or, if need be, a PROD? --Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I did, but as the creator made several assertions of notability, it no longer qualified for A7. Since the creator is entitled to remove the PROD tag as a means of contesting deletion, I've posted it here. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. It isn't. Notability is one stage further than importance/significance.--Launchballer 16:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Importance/significance" has indeed no 1:1 relationship with notability and we don't judge in an AFD whether something is important/significant. What we judge is notability and if that is missing, we delete, regardless of importznce/significance. Non-notability is a very good reason to delete something. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete No secondary sources to show notability. Unless they are included the article is, in effect, just a link to the society's website. Borock (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Piece is now actually titled New Environmentalist Society — an organization which returns all of 23 hits in a Google search for the exact phrase, none of which seem to count to GNG. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Do not Delete @hmssolent - additional sources attached to show notability and involvement with online petition from Viva! : http://www.viva.org.uk/huntingban/nikon/ also part of a nationwide campaign with People & Planet: http://peopleandplanet.org/dl/green-is-working-2012.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eohippus99 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC) — Eohippus99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment @Launchballer: Additional external source to show membership of SCC Coalition http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/members?id=41#41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifedrifter (talk • contribs) 10:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC) — Lifedrifter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • @Lifedrifter: One of those is the same as a ref which already exists, and it being signatory to a letter adds nothing to the article. For the time being, format the rest of the references in the same way I have and let me know afterwards.--Launchballer 12:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • @Launchballer: Hi, I've done the changes as suggested. Hope this is satisfactory and complies with the rules. Wikipedia is a learning process for me so far, fun as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifedrifter (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've added more references as Launchballer suggested. Please have a look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifedrifter (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! That's brilliant! Okay, keep.--Launchballer 14:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Although impressive-looking, none of the added references are what I would call independent references (and several don't look like they would be reliable sources either), with the exception of course of Business Week. Unfortunately, the latter article doesn't even mention "New Environmentalist". Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• keep at least three of the UK references that mention "new environmentalist" are reliable sources such as Viva!,Stop Climate Chaos&Tourism Concern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.47.190 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC) — 86.24.47.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep some references are not in English but most are independent and reliable, i.e. registered UK charities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eohippus99 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

One vote per customer, please. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• keepappears to be a notable NGO with decent references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaghne (talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Vagne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.