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) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total Environment Centre[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long standing environment group in Sydney, NSW, Australia. Notable for long history, campaigns. Probably one of the 5 key environment organisations in Sydney (capital of NSW). I have never been a member but have personal knowledge of it over a period of over 15 years and it was well known in environment circles at that time as a long serving organisation. It is notable in its context. Australia has only 25 Mill, NSW only about 7.5 mill, Sydney only about 4.5. Other major (in Sydney) environmental organisations like Environmental Defenders Office and Nature Conservation Council willingly work with TEC. Greenpeace has also coordinated with TEC to my personal knowledge. A few notable campaigns are listed in its About page on its website. A google search of news done in Sydney for "total environment centre" (in quotes in the search) gives over 1,000 results.It is worthy of a Wikipedia page.dinghy (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dinghy is correct and makes some good points. Deus et lex (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A very important operation within the environment sector. Gets plenty of media coverage for it's significant work. Teraplane (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like others, I am aware of the group and its historical role - Dinghy is correct in their comments. I note the article itself is pretty poor. It does need fixing. But I'd say no question of organisation notability. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cleaned up the links, added an inline web citation and a category. Still needs a bit more Teraplane (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2020 (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.