Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refracktion

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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refracktion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable WP:ORG. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. GNews and GBooks have zero hits for this environmental group. There are a handful of hits on Google, mostly to social media and blogs. The group's only apparent claim to fame is a successful complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority. Pburka (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are lots of media references to this group — even including the BBC! There are already a couple on the article. I will add others. This is a ludicrous Afd. --Kleinzach 04:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contrary to Pburka's suggestion, it is simply not true that Gnews has zero hits for a search for Refracktion. The BBC has given coverage which suggests that this group is becoming influential -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22284340 - The subject with which this group is involved is politically contentious in UK and this AFD may be motivated more by a desire to remove internet references to the embarrassing ASA decision, which can be accessed here http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx . The Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuadrilla_Resources also references this group. Agree that this is a ludicrous Afd. -Pac greywolf (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Pac greywolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Pac greywolf. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have read through the guidelines for notability and consider that the concerns have been addressed, there has been sufficient recognition by independent sources, particularly relevant is the group having national exposure through the BBC. ragamalait 8 June — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragamalait (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pburka has tagged Ragamalait as a single purpose account, despite the latter's work on another article. I've removed the tag and asked Ragamalait to respond. He doesn't seem to be at all active, but that doesn't mean he/she is an SPA. In stead of attacking other editors, Pburka should explain how he came to propose this Afd immediately after I'd created the article. What is your interest in the article? Anything to do with Canadian diplomat Afds? --Kleinzach 13:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and I may disagree on notability of diplomats, but I don't think I've ever questioned your good faith, and at no point have I attacked other editors. I politely request that you withdraw that accusation. I saw a new article created, examined it, and determined that it wasn't a notable organization based on a Google search. Contrary to Pac greywolf's claim, there really are no GNews hits. There are only a handful of passing references to this organization, and they're all about one, minor event. Ragamalait has edited exactly two pages, including this one, in the three years that the account has existed. I don't think it's a stretch to describe that account as a SPA. Pburka (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment SPA means single purpose account, not 'few purposes account'. It wasn't responsible to put the tag on Ragamalait's comment. I am pleased Pburka came here via some notfication(?) of newly created articles, rather than my contributions list. However I am surprised he should be asking for the deletion of an article which has been referenced with major media sources, when in the past he has consistently argued for keeping articles on the basis of references in local publications and primary sources. Why the change in approach here Kleinzach 00:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the discussion above.  Brendon is here 08:23, 11 June 2013 (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.