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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 00:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Association of Radio Transmitters

[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. most of the 18 gnews hits are passing mentions that merely verify its existence [1]. and no, I highly doubt you will find foreign language coverage of this and no the sources are not available on the internet and only in libraries. those wanting to keep must provide evidence of significant in depth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're really wasting our time and possibly having fun playing the cat-and-mouse game with us. It's really hard to track the individual deletion submissions. Also, this leads to scattering the responses. Please submit them altogether, if you think they should go, don't drop in one by one. PanchoS (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, a small number are notable. it's easier to show the lack of coverage individually. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not. Its a waste of our time. Make a MASS AFD since you are using a cookie-cutter Rational for all of them, and making the same request/argument of asking for Cites in each, to which the same awnser is replied to each, AFD is not cleanup. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~because it brings back memories...~~ Plenty of ghits. I would not expect many gnews hits since that is not an accurate representation of notability. gnews is only a snapshot of history. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual examples of third party coverage. you can't just say it's notable without evidence. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS should be avoided. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you consider a MASS AFD since you are using the same rational in every case and I am using the same !keep argument in every case. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization gets mentioned in the news. If it wasn't notable, it wouldn't be mentioned at all. And I agree, since all of these organizations are part of the International Amateur Radio Union group, their AFDs should be combined together. Dream Focus 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Support the use of stubs in this way. Some articles may have sufficient independent notability to stand on their own, some not, but all have inherent notability as national organizations affiliated with a notable international organization, and, while finding local sources specifically covering each particular association may be difficult, it is highly likely that such sources exist in local languages, by virtue of being recognized national associations involved regularly in international and national work, often with governmental recognition, and particularly where association histories extend back up to eighty years. The need for stubs for good article presentation is sufficient to outweigh minor notability concerns. --Abd (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it now has references. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I truly believe this organisation is notable. They have a long and varied history and they contribute meaningfully in their field. ManicSpider (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.