Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLR (Nous sommes la résistance) Australian Prepper Organisation

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 speedy delete as A7, no claim of significance or importance. ... discospinster _talk 00:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NLR (Nous sommes la résistance) Australian Prepper Organisation[edit]

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

Right, I'm fed up with this. Quacking sockpuppets (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackMack67) removing speedy delete notices on an article about an organisation that isn't notable and contains lots of original research. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Also WP:COI issues if user:JackMack67 is " Jacqueline Mackenzie elected chairman of NLR, interview in Geelong, Australia on the 8/07/2013". Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - where is the coverage at all, let alone the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required for notability? And the "oh, I was mistaken" messages in response are disingenuous at best. AGF, sure, but we're not completely stupid, right? Stalwart111 11:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficiently notable. Keep it for six months, but then if no more press coverage develops, we should consider deletion. SemiFree (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I have my suspicions about this account too (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackMack67). But anyway to address her points, presently we have no press coverage. This isn't how it works - if you can't provide press coverage now, it will be deleted. If in 6 months' time, you can provide adequate references, and consensus is to accept them, then it may be resurrected. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the purported references in this article appear to be irrelevant to the particular organization that is the subject of the article. If the organization really is notable, then the article's supporters ought to clean up the references so that all of them will point to relevant sources, not to things like Google Translate or Wikipedia categories. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no claim to notability, and online searches show clearly that no claim will be forthcoming. Wildly non-notable. Google searches lead only back to Wiki and to this page, which reads "Visit our Wikipedia page for more information." Hairhorn (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is ever RS coverage someone can re-create. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article not backed up by reliable, independent sources. Far too much WP:OR to be reliable. The Banner talk 22:14, 14 July 2013 (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.