Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scion (organisation)

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. Withdrawn by nominator and unanimous agreement is to keep. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scion (organisation)

[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)

~~No third-party independent sources GnocchiFan (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Zealand. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a significant government research organisation in New Zealand. Regularly gets coverage in New Zealand media, e.g. New Zealand Herald, Farmers Weekly, Radio New Zealand, and Stuff. NZ Herald, Stuff and RNZ are the most prominent news sites in New Zealand; Farmers Weekly would probably be the most relevant special-interest news site.-gadfium 18:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is poorly sourced in its current form, sources exist. In addition to those noted by Gadfium, several entries ([1], [2], [3]. [4]) in Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand detail the contribution of Scion (including under its former name of the Forest Research Institute) to forestry research in New Zealand. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your contributions to the article! I would like to withdraw this request, clearly it was in error. Thank you again!

GnocchiFan (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, I can totally see why it looked non-notable based on what the article looked like before. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable after Chocmilk03's good work on the article. Thanks, Chocmilk03!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yep, passes notability guidelines for organizations, per article expansion by Chocmilk03. Seconding A. B., good work! Tails Wx 02:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest that a Crown Research Institute has inherent notability. Schwede 66 14:37, 30 October 2023 (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.