Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waipoua Forest Trust

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 merge to Waipoua Forest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Waipoua Forest Trust

Waipoua Forest Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) no notability could be established for this organization. There need to be reliable secondary sources that cover this organization, not just incidental mentions in sources, press releases or their own website. I therefore propose deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.tak (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete a Google search returns less than 900 results, most of which are directories and social networking pages. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Since nomination I have removed possible copyvio content and rewritten from sources found in the first 100 search results. There are plenty of reliable independent sources that discuss the organization's activities and thus establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: Which of the sources you've added do you claim discuss the subject in "significant detail" and are reliable sources, as the GNG requires? Having just gone through them all, I don't see it. Newsletters don't count, seminar reports don't count, the Trust's own website doesn't count, casual mentions don't count, unrelated quotes by the Trust's officials don't count. That the Waipoua Forest is notable no one would dispute; that this Trust is, I do.  Ravenswing  22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge into Waipoua Forest. Grutness...wha? 22:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the trust does not appear to be particularly important, although I am sure the people involved would disagree. A relatively low-budget community volunteer organization. But merge seems a bit awkward, since the activities of the trust are different from a discussion of the forest itself. The newspapers and the New Zealand government have paid attention to the trust, and I assume a more thorough search would show further interest in the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Merge into Waipoua Forest. The trust is entirely subsidiary to the Waipoua Forest article and deserves its own section there rather than an entire article on its won. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to Waipoua Forest. No independent notability & merge-target isn't sufficiently long that a satellite article is needed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• support merge+create redirect to paragraph I fully support merging this into the forest-article where it indeed is sufficiently notable for mentioning. NB: I am the nominator and already made a statement above, which might be good to keep in mind -even while this is not a vote- L.tak (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 17:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge - The Waipoua Forest seems like a logical place to mention this organization which isn't quite notable enough for its own article. SnottyWong ^speak 17:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• merge as suggested. this could simply be done as the obvious solution and the AfD closed. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This is a notable charitable organization, getting news coverage on its own. Click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. Plenty of references in the article. Like this one [1]. Dream Focus 19:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge. Assuming this is the consensus, I will do it on closure. There is valid content, but it doesn't matter much whether it is in a stand-alone article or redirected to a section in the forest article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I think there are enough sources to constitute seperate articles. I think if the main article was written properly and comprehensively it would be too bloated to have this merged material and would need to be split again.I suppose a merge given the current situation would be appropriate but I have a feeling it will be split again in the future if somebody writes the main article (probably me)..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 11 December 2010 (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.