Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight the Pipe (3rd 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the Pipe

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

Fails to meet the basic criteria at WP:ORG of being "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". None of the news articles linked seem to mention an organisation by this name. A search of the Google News archive didn't turn up any reference either. Opposition to the construction of the South Wales Gas Pipeline can be appropriately covered in that article. Adambro (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my rather longer comment in the previous AfD. None of the references in the article mention an organisation by the name of 'Fight the Pipe', no reliable sources can be found for this organisation, ergo the subject does not meet the primary inclusion criterion of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The protest may be notable, and is in fact covered in the South Wales Gas Pipeline article. However, this article is about a specific protest organisation rather than the protest action in general. The article provides no references, but includes a bunch of external links, but these are all about the opposition to the pipeline and not a single one mentions "Fight the Pipe". My own searches find no coverage about this organisation in reliable sources. As such this organisation fails to meet notability regardless of any coverage the opposition to the pipeline has generated. All this is just a long winded way of saying I fully agree with Malcolmxl5's well researched and thought out reasoning. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Since this article has survived a previous AFD, it would be helpful to have a little more input before this is closed just to be sure that consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 08:36, 30 April 2010 (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.