Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegan Prisoners Support Group (2nd nomination)

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Prisoners Support Group[edit]

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

not convinced by the last AfD. in 16 years of existence all it gets is 6 gnews hits [1]. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AFD. It was notable then and it's still notable. The argument of low GNews hits is a non-starter - there isn't a threshold of number of hits that counts either way towards notability. Google News also misses lots of UK newspaper coverage - a search on the NewsUK archive demonstrates much more coverage from UK newspapers such as the Express, Mail, Telegraph, Western Mail, Guardian, and Birmingham Mail, several of which are not found in Google News. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please provide evidence of this additional coverage? LibStar (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was notable the last time, it doesn't loose notability just because it hasn't received much recent press as reported by google news. Monty845 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google news doesn't just cover recent press. it covers English press from up to over 100 years ago. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - granted, not a lot of coverage, but appears they achieved a major policy change which was reported by the Daily Mail[2], the Guardian[3] and the Telegraph[4] in 2009, which is significant.

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.