Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Right Think Tank

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 April 23.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left Right Think Tank[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. almost an ad. only 2 gnews hits [1]. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not fail WP:ORG. Left Right has received national television coverage via the state broadcaster ABC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oR4gMIkfs8. Left Right projects have also been discussed at length in the House of Representatives in the Australian Federal Parliament, 3 Feb 2010, pp.119-120 of Hansard. The WP:ORG guideline states:

Non-commerical organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

  1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
  2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources.

The article satisfies both of these criteria, and therefore should not be deleted.

notability is strengthened by multiple sources and significant coverage as per WP:GNG. which this org lacks. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw this article before and had concerns as to its notability or its prominence in independent reliable sources. I have also looked and can't find any significant reliable sources for this organisation. And to the "keep" vote above me - Hansard is a primary source, not an independent secondary source. The ref (I had to look for it as your page numbers were incorrect - it was p340-341) was simply a local member's speech about a community organisation. My local juniors' footy club actually gets more coverage in Hansard. Orderinchaos 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My page numbers on the Hansard were not incorrect. They were the page numbers for the initial proof copy, rather than the official Hansard published later. Hansard would be a primary source if the information related to the person who spoke in Parliament. However, the MP speaks as a reputable third party when referring to community organizations. Please show me where your juniors' footy club's aims and initiatives are discussed in Federal Parliament. User talk:Stonemac

Delete, unfortunately the nom is correct here, and I am not seeing enough coverage in multiple secondary sources in order to adequately satisfy WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organization has a high profile on university campuses in Australia, e.g., http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/notices/20090318/notices/left.html The organization is one year old so notability can be expected to increase over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.245 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Orderinchaos is righ about Hansard. I'm in Hansard myself and I'm thoroughly unnotable. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:51, 28 March 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.