Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Disclosure Project

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in the area -- or particularly well-acquainted, for that matter, in the area -- but gut feeling-wise it simply doesn't feel notable enough. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. I think their webpage is at [1], which seems to be a different address to the one linked to under external links. I would lean towards removing this on grounds of not being verifiable or notable. As far as I can tell all of the refernces in the article where produced by the organisation itself. --Martyman-(talk) 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd like to see where this is headed. It could use some tidying up --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sorry....I still don't understand...why delete? Please explain. Is this article about UFO's? No. I have not been drinking.,,,,,Keep per same reason given by User:Dysepsion.....Ariele 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable organisation. No verifiable evidence of their efforts. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has potential. See how it stands when verifiable entries are added. Vufors 06:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Over the years there has been a concerted effort by some UFO researchers to recover UFO files from the Australian Government. Independent researchers like Bill Chalker spent years sifting through military files. In say this the Australian Disclosure Project article which is not posted on this site by the user: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u this version on this site is a misrepresentation of the true article held at the Disclosure web page. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u have kept up with their continual disruptions deleting all and every additional information posted to this page. They omit and disregarded the efforts of many Australian ufologists reverting and posting their own version of the Australian Disclosure Project and Australian Ufology History. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u are trying to create a biased and distorted version of Australian UFO History and do so with the blessing of you Wiki voters. If this is what Wiki is all about then one has to wonder if the information on the rest of the Wiki server is verifiable and truly helpful information.
  • Comment, This Anon ISP was revered on this very same page for like attacks. [2]Vufors 12:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete AUFORN researchers have apparently given up on Wikipedia and trying to add content on this disputed page as well as on Australian Ufology due to constant deletion, harrassment and disruption by Vufors and Auforn4u who are both related to IP 202.83.73.188. Both of these usernames misrepresent the two organisations concerned (VUFORS and AUFORN) and the information provided on either article at the moment is not vouched for by them. See Talk:AUFORN and User talk:Vufors for clarification. --Zeug 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs more work. with National Archives of Australia info, over time. Auforn4u 08:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)" . Capitalistroadster 04:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 09:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no reason to delete seen, seems notable enough. Any other problems can be handled through non-AfD means. Turnstep 18:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, This project was only formed in 2003 (see: disclosure.freewebpage.org/Brisbane%20paper.htm ). AURA which is the people running the project has 8 memebers while AUFORN the overseeing body has only around 100 members Australia wide {see: disclosure.freewebpage.org/FAQ%20Aura1deb.htm#what_is_AURA ). If this is deemed notable you are opeing the door to a great many groups this small. --Martyman-(talk) 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree AUFORN on its own is not 'notable', AUFORN is an apparatus for a commercial magazine, and have in the past, staked a claim (Bogus) that this idea originated through them? As if no one in the past has question Governments departments on what they do, have or hold on various topics… preposterous claim.Vufors 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • VUFORS. You really have no idea the workings of AUFORN have you. We are like any other non profit group, the same as PRA, UFORQ, VUFORS the real one and UFOR NSW. If you the User VUFORS allowed the real history of Australian Ufology to be posted you might find out who actually worked for the military while presenting themselves as UFO researchers hidden within UFO groups. 'your loss. AUFORN 22.08 February 2006 (UTC) Delete

• • • There is precedence for this project, task or movement; I just have to get the reference(s) from the NAA. Vufors 01:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough Avi 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Disclosure Project and redirect. Ben Aveling 13:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sounds good. Kappa 01:43, 16 February 2006 (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.