Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Disclosure Project (2nd nomination)

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. The lack of independent sources cites by those on the delete side outweigh the keep opinions that state that the article is sourced, when the sources are clearly not independent. The other keep opinions make no argument to refute this lack of sources, and given their short and single purpose contibution history, I have accorded those less weight. Kevin (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Disclosure Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:CORP. Not a notable organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reluctant to endorse the awful Australian ufology article in any way, but the best solution to this is probably to merge a one sentance description of the group into that article. I've got no problems with deleting this article outright though given the lack of third-party references and fringe nature of the organisation. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts, Delete as there are no third party references to establish notability and this seems like a fringe organisation. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - To Australians this entry would be helpful. Some editors should remember Wiki is International, so I would say some will find it "awful" or foreign, but thats not a Wiki requirement. Its sourced. WP:N Vufors (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article starts by defining the general, worldwide definition of a "Disclosure Project", before getting into detail about the Australian version of a "disclosure project". Trouble is, there is no Wikipedia article about general disclosure projects. We haven't defined why a worldwide disclosure project is notable, so how can the Australian branch be notable? NAA references provided don't even mention the subject. I'd advise the author to save the text of the article, and repost it on the Australian UFO enthusiasts' website. --Lester 10:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Australian ufology. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I see no claim of notability made in the article, Fails WP:N/WP:CORP. Further, the article's sources don't meet WP:RS and appear not to be independent of the subject. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Disclosure as a principle is very worthy, given proper general treatment, but this article is about a narrow sectional issue and needs to be merged into some other article on that issue. Bjenks (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary would be clearer as Merge rather than Delete as they are different actions. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, of course, as per Lester and Pete Hurd. 222.153.75.176 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 222.153.75.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong Keep Any citizen effort to get information from the government, from any country, is notable. It has newspaper sources and NAA sources, its a no brainer. 202.161.73.61 (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) — 202.161.73.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - These large/small public movements are not one nighter simple flings. They are build on the next generation of activists. The groups effort can be covered by a generic names such as Peace movement and all its large/small annexes, or Freedom of information et al, Free_tibet et al, etc. This one has a wikipedia place.Zeanew (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — Zeanew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - I have no idea why this would be nominated in the Au projects by this nominator with a WP:CORP? Have to agree with above editor, to keep. L\LanceBaker (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — L\LanceBaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Because WP:CORP == Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the relevant Wikipedia guideline for inclusion that applies to Organizations such as the Australian Disclosure Project, and that the Australian Disclosure Project seems to fail. As a relative newcomer, you may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looked after by australian projects, WP:N 124.181.171.132 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — 124.181.171.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I don't understand your comment, do you mean to suggest that articles under the care of WP:WikiProject Australia have different standards for notability than do articles on other subjects? Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (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.