Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VicSRC

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VicSRC

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another user (appropriately) removed PROD, so I'll nominate for AfD. I don't see any evidence that this group is notable. There are no sources except for those published by the group itself. News searches only turn up a few mentions of the full name or its abbreviation, and each of those is something to the effect of "Person X, a member of VicSRC, said ...." Even if Persons X were notable, notability is not inherited by the organization. Finally note that the primary article editor explicitly states on the article's talk page that the organization is small and is unlikely to have outside articles written about, essentially agreeing that the group does not meet notability guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your concern talk:Qwyrxian however I believe your complaint to be invalid on grounds of notability. There are three reputable sources in the references section that reference the VicSRC as an independent body and therefore in someway notable. Nowhere in the article does it state that the group is "small" as suggested by you. The VicSRC page has existed for many years and it is only through trying to expand a stub that I have run into opposition on grounds of notability. I again thank-you for your concern and hope that you revise your decision to nominate the VicSRC as an AfD Mshellie (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that sources have indeed been added. However, sources 1 & 4 are the same (if article is kept, I'll show you how to duplicate the reference without having it show up on reflist twice), and are a publication of VicSRC themselves--thus, as self-published sources, they don't establish notability. Source 2 is, I believe, also supposed to link directly to VicSRC's website, so same problem. The third reference doesn't mention VicSRC, so doesn't actually belong in this article. The fifth site is self-published, and it's just an announcement of a VicSRC event. That also does not establish notability. So, while the article has links, it doesn't have reliable sources of the type it needs to establish notability. What it needs to remain an article are independent, reliable sources, like magazine or newspaper articles, discussions in academic or education journals, or other things of that nature. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian I have looked through the article, there are now seven independent sources mentioning the VicSRC, the events that they do run, that I feel are relevant to the article as they are an awareness organisation. Considering the fact that it is a short article and it does have seven reputable government, school and newspaper sources I would see this to be more than enough grounds for notability. Mshellie (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of notability. I don't know what Mshellie means by "independent sources", but as far as I can see seven sources given are (1) a dead link, (2) a page which merely lists the contents of a publication of VicSRC, (3) several publications of VicSRC, (4) a publication of the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria, which includes a brief report on VicSRC's recent activity, written by a representative of VicSRC, (5) an announcement/advertisement for an event organised by VicSRC. I see nothing at all that is independent of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Comment. This article is about an organisation that supports and connects student leadership groups in secondary schools in the Australian state of Victoria. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, it does appear to be exactly that, and I certainly don't dispute that's it's probably important to the members and maybe even other students in Victoria. However, existence does not imply notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but this was not obvious from anything before in the nomination, and the subject is not obvious from the article name either. My comment was mostly for the benefit of AfD patrollers who might be interested. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note If kept, the article should be moved to the organization's full name.

Strong keep. The organization is notable on several counts. Citations have been cleaned and added. • Freechild'sup? 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On several counts", without saying what counts, is not very helpful. I am not sure in what sense the citations have been "cleaned", but we still have no sources which are independent of the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note- check the references again. There is a university, an independent organization, and a third-party education publication. • Freechild'sup? 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The independent organization article (on p.14 of that, for those looking for VicSRC) is 1) only borderline reliable, as it's not clear there is editorial oversight, and 2) not actually independent--notice that the article is written in the first person by someone who is also a member of VicSRC. The 3rd part organization, as I stated above, is just an announcement of a VicSRC meeting--by policy, this does not count as significant coverage. The university link does nothing to indicate notbaility--it's just a video of a VicSRC meeting, which again establishes existence, but not notability.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Additional citations added. • Freechild'sup? 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong keepThere are links to independent sources, including government and school sources which are written by independent members of the public about the VicSRC. Notability as with many things is in the eye of the beholder as a side note Wikipedia is used as a reference guide and it is an organisation notable for over 35,000 people and the State Government of Victoria (as sighted when they published a piece on their website, therefore establishing notability) JamesBWatson if you took the time to look through the articles you would find that Connect magazine and others have written about the VicSRC. Mshellie (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson. I can't see the relevance of the remark by Mshellie about Wikipedia, but would point out that the word is 'cited' (unless it was unexpectedly espied by someone...). I might be missing something, but cannot see Connect magazine listed there. It is not easy to find in a gsearch, as there are very many Connect magazines. A couple of refs checked at random are just passing mentions - Mr X, member of ... sort of thing. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JamesBWatson, the references in the article all appear to be passing mention or self-published, and I'm not not finding much of anything on google. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2010 (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.