Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Industry and Defence Network

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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Industry and Defence Network

[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)

Most of the article has been hidden due to copyright violations from its subject's web page. There is little evidence that the organisation is independently notable and I can't see any links that should be made to remove its orphan status. Scott Davis ^Talk 12:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis ^Talk 02:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure simply being an orphan page is enough to support deletion but notability does not appear to be supported by sources, I did a search and found nothing that showed it as being independently notable. Could also go with merging this into the Australian defence industry page if someone can suggest an appropriate home for it. FOARP (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with FOARP's observation in so far as I too could not find any indepth/core IRS to readily generate content for the subject. However, there are a very large number of very reliable mentions across a wide range of aspects which would allow more than a stub article to be written. Yes it means a bit of work to pull it all together, but there is I believe sifficient WP:NEXIST to support GNG and develop a sufficient article. They are recognised in multiple IRS as the peak defence industry body for small to medium enterprises in Australia. Aoziwe (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The subject could easily support a few due weight paragraphs in Defence industry of Australia, so if not kept then a redirect to such. Aoziwe (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: No longer an orphan. Aoziwe (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article doesnt amount to much but the organisation is widely reported in independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does have some (not that many) news item mentions as one of the groups advocating this or that. It is lacking in the article and in my BEFORE in-depth sources required per WP:NORG.Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Advocating this or that is precisely the point of these industry groups. That is evidence of notability. Nobody ever writes about their internal processes, which are generally secret anyway.Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If all we have is random quotes of X from Australian Industry and Defence Network saying Y - and nothing on the history or org makeup - it is not notable. If they were really widely quoted (I don't see it - I see around 20 odd quotes) - it would be an indication they are possibly notable (and us having trouble finding sources in the quote weed) - but this subject ia not there. Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just being quoted doesn't make them notable as the quotes aren't significant coverage of them. What's needed are references about them, and we don't have those. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of these industry groups is to lobby on behalf of the members. If they get quoted that is evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aoziwe. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:40, 27 November 2018 (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.