Deletion of Great Walk Networking (3rd nomination)

Comment: I am the initial contributor to this article.  I think the main point of this call for afd is (again) related to the idea that newspaper articles don't suffice for some people as adequate reference under  guidelines, but they do.  Offline, hard source library material should be strongly supported on Wiki.  The first three references do not form the backbone of the references made available and it is quite wrong to dwell on these references when there are clearly The West Australian | West Australian references that meet guidelines for notability on their own.  I should also say that this organisation's involvement in the conservation movement is clearly historical, although it is still active...the substantial (and, in one case, two page long) The West Australian |West Australian references are from Great Walk's ''tenth'' anniversary walk and there are many more references to events in 1988 that I haven't been back to the library to reference
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Clearly notable, meets  and  per secondary sources (the article mentions two The West Australian articles, both of which I've managed to find - including an entire 2-page article dedicated to it, a surprising amount of attention from the State's normally conservative newspaper of record to the 10th anniversary of a walk through the bush!) - the State Library of Western Australia hosts http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/X?SEARCH=great+walk+networking&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=A several items related to them including their newsletter as printed, and while the 1988 newspapers haven't been consulted, I'm fairly sure if I was to look when I'm in the Battye Library in the next few days I'd find something fairly quickly. If I do, I'll add it. I hadn't heard of this organisation prior to the last AfD, and didn't vote in said, but I tend to think that if something meets our policies and there is no good reason to remove it, then we shouldn't.  in itself is not a reason to delete, and there does not appear to be a significant COI issue, as is clearly documented on the talk page. Other editors with considerable Wikihistory have significantly contributed to the page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:COI)

Comment: Out of the gate, i'm going to say . I live in Western Australia and have been for 22 years, am a reasonably well read and informed person, and also eariler this year have taken up a position in the public sector directly related to forestry activities - and I've never heard of them at all. I've also taken the liberty of calling one of my colleagues, a long time community consultation coordinator on forestry issues, and the sum total of their notability is one very small footnote in the history of the issues, and had it not been for the insane level of information in this article I would not have been able to give him enough detail to remember it. I concur with the nominator, who has gone to great lengths to set out the case for deletion. Not withstanding the obvious issues of  as identified, a large majority of the information seems to contain a level of bias and lacks referencing beyond what is reasonably acceptable. Despite reasonable time being given to correct the problems identified through the previous AfD debates, no action has been forthcoming to resolving them. Label this article for the variation of cruft it is and be done with it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground (WP:HOLE||WP:COI)