Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sign Language Interpreters Association of New Zealand

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. Michig (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sign Language Interpreters Association of New Zealand

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

fails WP:ORG. all the sources are primary. I could find only 1 hit in nz herald. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From New Zealand Government's website, "The Sign Language Interpreters Association of New Zealand (SLIANZ) is the national professional body for sign language interpreters". It is sufficient for me to vote in favor of keeping this article in Wikipedia. --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

being a national professional body is not a criterion for notability. This does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH . LibStar (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this association's name is being mentioned in few more websites like from Deaf association website Most NZSL Interpreters in New Zealand are registered with the Sign Language Interpreters Association Inc.. Every country has few "education for blinds", "education for deaf" organizations No one stalks about them. Searching in Google might be a good way to judge notability of a young female model, but, may not be helpful for a national body who works for sign language interpretation. One more thing, in the article it is said- This translation article is a stub., but I can not understand (see the "interwiki") from where they have translated! There we might get few more sources! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please demonstrate existence of significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my last post, I attempted to say not all organizations are significantly covered by digital media depending on what kind of work they are doing. I have never seen full coverage of pension schemes or well known orphan homes in newspapers! I don't think you and also I can tell the name of the best braille or blind education researcher of your or my country and can collect any digital source for him. The 2-3 digital sources I have seen is sufficient for me to give a "keep" vote here specially after learning that this is the national professional body of a country where sign language is also the second official language. In my last post I posted a query on the source of translation (if it is translated), there we may get some more good non-English sources! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the sources merely confirm existence, sources do not have to be digital, see WP:OFFLINE. again being a national body is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, sign languge is also the second official language of New Zealand JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't demonstrated if any notability criterion is met. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As the national body of one of NZ's official languages, I would tend to concur that this fact alone gives enough reason to justify an article. Schwede 66 05:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Schwede66 and maybe I am being a bit charitable to those who are deaf. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:23, 28 December 2012 (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.