Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otago NORML

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 June 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close updated to no consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 13. Daniel (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otago NORML

[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 sources are either regional publication (mainly the Otago Daily Times), university newspapers (Critic Te Arohi) and primary-sourced YouTube video. I only see two national sources. The first I can't access, and the second is a mention of a cannabis museum but does not go into detail. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd give the ODT more credit than being a regional publication; it's the major newspaper covering Otago. Yes, that is a region, but you could also argue the same for The Press in Christchurch, and I would also disagree with that thinking. The sustained ODT coverage brings this over the general notability line for me. Schwede 66 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the ODT and One News coverage clearly establishes notability imo. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are not 'more' sources available, but the existing ones establish the subject's notability. For example, the Critic here, establish GNG. Others include Otago Times here among others. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Critic Te Ārohi established notability as it is a student newspaper of Otago University. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSSM applies here: given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions — HTGS (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed with comments above. ODT establishes notability. Student newspapers are prone to inaccuracy and errors but I suppose they might be used in this context. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to NORML New Zealand) as lacking significant non-trivial coverage. I don’t think the ODT is an unreliable source, nor do I think regional papers should be looked down on (technically all of NZ’s printed newspapers are regional), but most of the “coverage” in the article is very sparse, and neither the ODT nor the One News sources represent non-trivial coverage of the org itself, so much as coverage of various events and people where the org was mentioned (per WP:SIGCOV example on Clinton’s high school band). I have the impression the org is currently defunct or inactive. Thanks Panamitsu, I have been meaning to nominate this article for a while. — HTGS (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the discussion of Otago Daily Times is relevant; WP:BRANCH is extremely clear that "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Every source in this article, and every source I could find in a BEFORE search, is either local to the Dunedin area or to the university itself. (The only non-local source is really about Abe Gray and a museum, not sigcov of Otago NORML.) I would encourage other editors and participants here to engage with the WP:BRANCH criteria here, since WP:ORGCRIT establishes a higher standard than WP:GNG for organizations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per above Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The rationale for deletion being presented is that, while this is a subject of multiple pieces of significant, independent, published coverage of presumed reliability, because the newspaper is not "national", this somehow invalidates the source for GNG. This is emphatically not the case. There is no requirement that a source be of national scope, period, end of statement. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:BRANCH, the organization (as a chapter of NORML) must have coverage in news outlets/sources that go beyond its region. That is where the requirement for a source of greater than regional scope is quite clear. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, BRANCH says that it needs to have coverage outside the local area (not the region). The WP:AUD section of that guideline requires only one (1) non-local source, and explicitly names a regional source as a non-local source.

(Also, the nom says there are two national sources, and two national sources + multiple regional sources = a lot more than the single non-local source required by WP:NORG.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRANCH says no standalone article "unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Otago Daily Times serves Dunedin and its local area. There is no need to wikilawyer the meaning of the term "local." There is only one national source (NZHerald) in the article, right here, and it does not even mention Otago NORML, much less provide substantial coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2024 (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.