Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia

:{{la|National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia}})

This organisation is no longer recognised by the [http://www.ieaa.org.au/ International Education Association of Australia], the NUS, the University of NSW or the Group of Eight as a legitimate representative body - see articles [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/victorian-names-dispute-for-international-student-bodies/story-0-1225736507036 here] and [http://www.smh.com.au/national/overseas-student-group-at-centre-of-bullying-claims-20090508-axzz.html here]. This entire article is now entirely factually inaccurate and the current body is no longer notable as a representative organisation. Australian Matt (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

:Changed position to Keep after comprehensive article changes. Australian Matt (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Australian Matt (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Australian Matt (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The rationale that a group "is no longer recognized" is not helpful. Once notable, always notable. In this case, though, the actions of the current leadership are attracting media attention, enough to establish notability for the organization as it now exists. If the Sydney Morning Herald writes about the group, it's notable. The fact that various other associations don't consider it representative does not detract from its notability. – Eastmain (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

::Comment. The main rationale is that the article should be deleted as it is because, in its current form, the organisation is a very different one to the one written about in the article. I disagree with the "Once notable, always notable" mantra in this case, because we're actually talking about an organisation that is fundamentally different to the one described in the article. I don't believe any of the info in the article is now notable. Australian Matt (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

:::Comment. Also - the Sydney Morning Herald writes about lots of non-notable things - should [http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/girl-16-poses-nude-on-magazine-cover-20091126-jsey.html Ella Rose Corby] have a wiki page? As said in the intro, this group's notability rested with its representative status, but it is now a different group, none of the individuals on the page were members of the organisation in its current form. Australian Matt (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

::::BLP issue. Organisations face a different notability criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Quick keep: DEST / DEEWR republishing their submissions as an element of Federal Inquiries establishes multiple points of Notability in HQRS. Multiple newspaper articles. If you're worried about this being inaccurate, then simply add some major =Sections= =1986 to 2009 in NUS= =Post 2009 NUS expulsion Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: The changes are comprehensive enough for the article to remain. Australian Matt (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

: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.