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 no consensus. (other than to cleanup) CitiCat^♫ 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Walk Networking[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is the 3rd nomination. There was a mix up with the first nomination. It was nomination for COI but withdrawn, so I nominated with the 2nd AFD. But then the first was changed nomination for notibility, so the 2nd AFD was correctly closed as AFD's too quickly. The last keep discussion the concensus was basically that notibility would be established, but the article was too new. None of claimed notability that resulted in the keep was ever added the article, it is now months later and it is time to delete it.

My main reason for nominating are: WP:COI and Notibility.
Notibility: The article shows no sources for anything in it, instead it just lists some references at the end. The article has just 3 sources for reference. None of which establish notibility in any way. The first one talks about an ideal of the club, it has nothing to do with the club itself, the club is in no way mentioned in the reference. The second reference is legal bill in the house sittings, the club gets a passing mention as one of many many clubs that were talked with by the government on establishment of the borders of the national park and its walking track. Hundreds of clubs are mentioned in the document. No notability is asserted here. The 3rd reference merely a link to the Australia Buisness register, just because the buiness exists doesn't mean its notable.
In the further reading section we seen a lot of links. Many have nothing to do with great networking but just to do with saving the forest etc. The books about great networking in the library are required by law as the documents for the non profit organisation, every organization has them in WA. No notibility here at all.

The 'media' section is merely a mention of their own document, which they had made themselves and has not been shown on any stations of notable audience.

Clearly this article completely fails WP:ORG "is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."

As for the conflict of interest, it should be obvious that several of the authors of the page are admitted members of the club. Most of the document is unsourced (indeed as I have said above the reference mention NOTHING that is in the article). One of the editors is User:Greatwalk who created the page himself and has continually added content with no sources what so ever. The main reason for the COI is that the article makes alot of claims and gives the impression it is responsible for alot of the major walks - when it is not, they are walks involving many groups.

After over 6 months of not providing any decent sources nor establishing notibility, I think it is time it gets deleted. I urge only independant people to examine the page and club, so as to avoid what happened last time, when all the great walk members came to support the club with huge statements and no hard proof of any sources or notibility. Dacium 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of nomination - Does not meet notability standards, and has a WP:COI. Recommend deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (My actual !vote now) The essay above does appear to be correct. The first reference does not mention the club at all, the second only does so in passing, and the third only acknowledges that it exists, which isn't a claim to notability. I can't find any reliable hits on Google after several attempts to re-word the searching to get it to work out. Neutrality concerns can be cleaned up, but that's irrelevant if we don't have any information to go off of. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Delete Out of the gate, i'm going to say WP:HOLE. 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 WP:COI 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. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable, meets WP:N and WP:RS 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 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. WP:COI 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. Orderinchaos 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with their being an article for Great Walk Network, but it needs to be stubified. The problem is there is a huge amount of information in the document that is completely without any sources what so ever that practially all content needs to be deleted. From the sources available one could merely just say they are some registered conservation based association. The rest of it could be completely made up.--Dacium 07:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the 1998 article alone, together with the sort of uncontroversial basic information which can be sourced from primary, would be enough to provide a lot of the details. Will be interesting to see what the 1988 papers say. Note that essentially you are not arguing deletion, but cleanup, and this would have been much better achieved with the appropriate tags. Orderinchaos 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, the further reading section is evidence of notability and verifiability. Obscurity != Lack of notability. Also, the COI was considered in the first nomination and deemed not an issue. user:Dacium was the only person whose delete vote was left on the first Afd. John Vandenberg 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mystified why a third delete process is required when above it appears that a cleanup tag could have sufficed. There are newer tags being used by some admins that challenge even well referenced articles to actually put citations into the articles to show the connections between the references and the assertions. It would seem much better for process to abandon the afd - and replace the afd tag with a cleanup tag - and then if orderinchaos and others can tie assertions with the references - we can get on with something more positive than worrying about an obscure western australian environmental organisation that did and have affect and participation in the community. It does feel like fiddling while wikipedia is burning. Satu Suro 13:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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 WP:N 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 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) 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. Thewinchester couldn't have as easily taken a trip to the library as 'ask a friend' perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact the references exist and meet WP:N and WP:RS, nor do I believe that word of mouth should replace library research. This article is clearly incomplete, but if those concerned believe they have 'offered time' to clean the article up, then it should have been tagged for a cleanup, not deletion. WP:COI is not an issue at this point since the article did reach consensus to keep in the first afd (although I have greater insight into what caused initial concern as a more experienced editor now) and also others have both contributed to the article and cross-referenced it since. User: Dacium makes a completely erroneous claim that article contributors or participants in afd debates are, or have been, members of this organisation...they are, for the most part, all long term editors on Wiki. There is a history of conservation movements in Western Australia and this organisation is a verifiable and notable part of that history. --Greatwalk^Talk 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OIC. Twenty Years 14:55, 16 September 2007 (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.