Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight the Pipe (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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the Pipe[edit]

nn organisation also fails wp:corp Oo7565 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note i am sorry again i that afd for early today about it did not show up anywhere so i try again i am very sorry againOo7565 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do you see those refs at the bottom of the page? They assert notability. And yes, it actually does satisfy WP:CORP#Non-commercial organizations, as "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale." (they're a protest organization against for importing oil... importing = international... seeing a connection?) flaming lawyer 01:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced from references from the BBC. Meets WP:N and WP:RS. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep it's not well written but the sources are there and obvious. Tagged for clean up. --neon white talk 17:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although protests against the pipe are well covered in the references, none of them actually mention an organisation by the name of 'Fight the Pipe' (a couple of protest groups - 'Rising Tide' and 'Safe Haven Network' - are in fact mentioned in some references, but not 'Stop the Pipe'). The subject thus fails WP:N because there is a lack of significant coverage about the organisation itself in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I am making the distinction here between the generic protests, which may be notable, and the organisation, which is not. The 'Fight the Pipe' website, which is linked in the article, is a blog and thus is both a primary source and not a reliable source. Since there are no reliable sources (I find no news coverage of an organisation called 'Fight the Pipe'[1]), the subject also fails one of our core policies, that of being verifiable in a reliable source. No objection to the generic protests being covered in Wikipedia as these seem to be notable; actually, I see that they are covered in South Wales Gas Pipeline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (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.