Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NORML South Africa

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NORML South Africa

[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)

Reason (as posted at the article) Thanks for your work on this article. I just reviewed it as a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process.

In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. In reviewing the article I see no coverage whatsoever of this type, nor anything that would indicate temporarily bypassing wp:GNG under a special notability guideline. I'm nominating it under Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion Process so the the community may decide. I also note that the article has been tagged for wp:notability concerns since December 2019, and PRODed in December 2019 with the tag removed with no work or changes addressing that issue since then. Also there are some concerns that the creator user name cannibispromoter obviously has wiki-experience, but only has 20 lifetime edits under that user name, all about the NORML organization. IMO it would be a better idea to merge this material into the top level NORML article. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sole reference in the article is to a single-issue website of very dubious RS status hiding behind the url of a legitimate news organization. Every other search result for the organization finds a source that is either not independent, not reliable, or both. No evidence it passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 26 March 2020 (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.