Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koeberg Alert

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. Sandstein 13:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koeberg Alert[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)

I'm not really convinced of the notability of this group. They have fewer than 500 followers on Facebook and don't seem to have much external media coverage. Additionally, the page has been riddled with problems for years, in part due to a lack of usable sources about them. The article doesn't have a neutral point of view and I've had difficulty coming up with sources to back up many of its claims. Lengau (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources in books - [1][2][3][4][5], seems to be a significant anti-nuclear organisation in South Africa and should satisfy WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hzh. Facebook and other social media have no relevance when it comes to our notability guidelines. Someone may have 1 million followers on social media but not deemed notable. And another may have 100 and deemed notable. The number of followers on social media is irrelevant here. Any ad or neutrality issue can be resolved by editing the article. Editing problems are not grounds for deletion.Tamsier (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hzh's sources. Surprising amount of coverage to be honest, but it has plenty of sourcing and is a worthwhile addition. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2019 (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.