Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DefCom Australia
- 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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DefCom Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unnotable "loyalty program" which is in essence nothing more than an employee benefits scheme Murtoa (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Murtoa (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while may not be as famous as Base exchange (better known to me as PX), it is the Australian equivalent and I see no reason to fail to include an article on the Australian attempt to provide benefits similar to those quite famously enjoyed by the US military. I believe this nomination is an unfortunate example of bias as per the point made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - Similarly, systemic bias may cause articles of local interest to places (from where few Wikipedians come), to be nominated for deletion for lacking notability, because they are obscure to the majority of Northern Hemisphere Anglophone editors. The nominator is based in Australia so I am not suggesting he is based in the Northern Hemisphere and thus biased against an Australian article, but rather in my view to ensure reasonable coverage of issues we should have an article on the benefits schemes of other military organisations not just the US scheme to help provide balanced views across Wikipedia. It may be that this article content would form part of a larger article on the topic (not all of this article's content would need to be included!). --Matilda talk 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No intention to introduce regional bias. Just not convinced that an employee benefit scheme is inherently notable. Scale of the US version appears to be driving notability. Murtoa (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy and prove notability. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a ref as per Stifle's criteria has now been added--Matilda talk 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, you've proven it exists. Now please explain how it is notable. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response re notability - notability is not a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia necessarily - the inclusion criteria is based on verifiability and then a number of things which wikipedia is not. The reason for retaining inclusion of this article as per my comments above is to add some perspective on military benefits provided by military other than the US. In principle I would have no objections to the content being merged with another article (subject to that being proposed and evaluated separately) but I do have an objection to the material being eliminated - we are otherwise giving undue weight to US military as opposed to the military of other (admittedly much smaller) countries. As per an old link I saved from some time ago: Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No: Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.) To continue - our current guidelines on notability state is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article - the topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity" - I believe this is notable, as in worthy of notice DefCom is the Australian response to US military perks; it does not have to famous. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is not relevant as this article is not about the company, this article is one of many on the Australian military and I don't think there is any dispute that we should have articles on that - or any other military.--Matilda talk 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, you've proven it exists. Now please explain how it is notable. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a ref as per Stifle's criteria has now been added--Matilda talk 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Matilda. Just as notable as Base exchange (to an Aussie at least).--Sting au Buzz Me... 05:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the terms outlined by Stifle.X Marx The Spot (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm satisfied with Matilda's response here. X Marx The Spot (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Matilda talk 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (but, as the person who established this page, you'd expect me to say that!) Several days ago I bought some items at a local auto parts supplier. After the bill had been rung up, I presented my credit card with the DefCom logo on it. The sales assistant said, "If you'd only told me about this before I rang off the sale, I could have given you 5% off." My 'bad'. I lost the benefit, which I should have known about if I'd looked up the brochure. I'm a "believer" (even if I didn't use it that time.) For me, it's notable! - Peter Ellis - Talk 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It might be a great scheme for defence personnel, but I'm still to be convinced that this confers notability. Ultimately, it is simply an employee benefit. Is the employee discount available to 165,000 Coles Group employees in Australia notable? Or similar sized benefit programs for public servants? I can't see that simply owing to it being within the military that this confers greater notability. The strongest argument appears to be that the US has one, so a smaller Australian version must be similarly notable. Would that mean that a similar scheme for, say, Fijian military would also warrant an article? Murtoa (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that a similar scheme for the Fijian or any other military would warrant an article or perhaps there could be an article on benefits for the military if a sensible article could be made without reverting to original research. The employee discount available to Coles Employees could form part of the article on the Coles Group (along with the now defunct shareholders' scheme which was very significant in shaping the ownership of the company and it subsequent management fortunes (aha it is mentioned in the article but not its shaping of the ownership of the company). I am unaware of any benefit scheme for public servants that was established as a condition of employment (as opposed to union membership) ... The question to me is whether wikipedia is better off with or without this information - I believe this information adds to the sum of knowledge - there is an issue about the disparate benefits between different military organisations, particularly when they serve alongside each other. I note in passing that Australians had access to the NAAFI during WW2.--Matilda talk 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of continuing to be a minority voice of dissension, I still can't see how this scheme is any more notable than benefit schemes in non-military environments. Social clubs of typical large Australian organisations offer discounts and other benefits to their employees but these arrangements are not inherently notable. The fact that defence force personnel have a similar benefit in my view doesn't advance Wikipedia one iota. Murtoa (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that a similar scheme for the Fijian or any other military would warrant an article or perhaps there could be an article on benefits for the military if a sensible article could be made without reverting to original research. The employee discount available to Coles Employees could form part of the article on the Coles Group (along with the now defunct shareholders' scheme which was very significant in shaping the ownership of the company and it subsequent management fortunes (aha it is mentioned in the article but not its shaping of the ownership of the company). I am unaware of any benefit scheme for public servants that was established as a condition of employment (as opposed to union membership) ... The question to me is whether wikipedia is better off with or without this information - I believe this information adds to the sum of knowledge - there is an issue about the disparate benefits between different military organisations, particularly when they serve alongside each other. I note in passing that Australians had access to the NAAFI during WW2.--Matilda talk 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It might be a great scheme for defence personnel, but I'm still to be convinced that this confers notability. Ultimately, it is simply an employee benefit. Is the employee discount available to 165,000 Coles Group employees in Australia notable? Or similar sized benefit programs for public servants? I can't see that simply owing to it being within the military that this confers greater notability. The strongest argument appears to be that the US has one, so a smaller Australian version must be similarly notable. Would that mean that a similar scheme for, say, Fijian military would also warrant an article? Murtoa (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Matilda. Five Years 11:56, 4 May 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.