Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Zealandia

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. As noted, the only two "keep" opinions are by new accounts. Sandstein 11:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Action Zealandia[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)

Notability issues. This is a small white nationalist group who, given how positive this article is, have likely written this article themselves to promote the organisation. This article is using Action Zealandia's website for the majority of references. Nexus000 (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Action Zealandia[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Wikipedia should not be promoting Nazi hate groups. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i got rid of the unambiguous advertising or promotion. WoodLay (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christchurch mosque shootings. Group does not appear to be notable, all reliable sources that I can find just mention it in connection with the shootings. Schazjmd (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Of the five sources given, two are their own website, one is about a New Zealand MP. Putting posters over a sign doesn't warrant a page creation. Edigodiuss (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable, they have independent sources. i can't say the same thing about pages like the New Communist Party of Aotearoa which has had no media media coverage and yet they still have their page up. WoodLay (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:WoodLay, you may only vote once. If you have more to add, use Comment at the start. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a deletion policy (I forget which) that says we can remove a page even if it is not the worst one on Wikipedia. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment Fails WP:ILLCON. "It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct shall not be used to establish an organization's notability per this guideline." I'd argue that the event in question that this group claimed to commit isn't even significant enough in and of itself, but even if it was that wouldn't warrant a page. Edigodiuss (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ILLCON as above, I would also add WP:TOOSOON. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought the article was fairly neutral, and not promotional to begin with. It's not promotion to state its actions, or stating its ideology from the source, if done so from a neutral standpoint. The organization is as notable if not more so, than the now defunct Right Wing Resistance or recently created New Communist Party of Aotearoa. Redmin (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existence or nonexistence of other articles on Wikipedia cannot be used as the raison d'être of an article. If you believe that those two other articles don't meet WP:GNG you can nominate them for deletion. Also, Redmin might be a WP:SOCK, account was created today and they only have 4 edits, all of which are related to Action Zealandia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redmin) Edigodiuss (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am merely an interested party, as I have looked up the group, and noticed the changes made in the Wikipedia entry last i saw it. I wish to point out that almost all news articles cited coverage of it "beyond a mere trivial mention", as they pertain to the group and its activity, including the titles of the articles themselves being dedicated to it. Hardly a passing mention.Redmin (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not say that the mention of AZ was trivial in any of these articles, I said that the actions themselves were trivial. Seeing as you're "an interested party", you have not adressed the main point that has been mentioned multiple times, that this articles falls under WP:ILLCON, as the organization is not notable outside of two minor criminal acts. The only reason this might be kept would be because the victim of one of the crimes is an important figure (under WP:CRIME), but even then that mostly pertains to major crimes committed against notable figures by people who weren't notable. As the crime was very minor (if it can even be called that, it was minor vandalism), I believe it would fall well outside of that. Edigodiuss (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, small acts of vandalism don't make this group notable, and it appears they've only been around for less than a year.-gadfium 06:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Comment on the two people who voted Keep. WoodLay created the original article. Redmin's account was created today and their only activity has been editing the page and insisting to keep the page up. Both are highly likely to be Action Zealandia members with a vested interest to keep the page up. Nexus000 (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

commentAs per WP:N I am inclined to say that this is a marginal call. There is clearly independent coverage- but whether the group or individual members are the focus is debatable. There have been more than one incident- but none are notable in their own right. WP relating to criminal figures clearly applies, but as per the victims are notable. I would contend that there is a strong possibility this page could be notable and after these concerns have been raised there should be a period provided for editors to establish definite notability. Willthewanderer (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 4 May 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.