Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Zealandia

Action Zealandia

[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]

KeepI thought the article was fairly neutral, and not promotional to begin with. I also suspect the users advocating deletion are politically motivated, and most likely coordinated therefore breaking the rules of sockpuppetering. Regardless its 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]