Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Studies Resource Centre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women's Studies Resource Centre

Women's Studies Resource Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

User:DGG prodded the article with the reason, "probably unimportant - local resource center", and User:Rebecca contested the prod. (These are both well-respected admins.) Since the COI bot found this article - correctly, it would appear - I think there are grounds for starting an AFD. My opinion is "weak delete". I think the COI is there, but Bearian's cleanup work may be sufficient to address that problem. Shalom Hello 15:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete for failing to receive "significant coverage by independent sources". - Google news archive search turns up only trivial mentions Corpx 20:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's notable enough, and I don't the COI argument is valid, considering as there are evidently others who think it is notable as well. Rebecca 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is considerably stronger than the version I saw I'd never have questioned this --glad it's been improved. . DGG (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete origional research--SefringleTalk 04:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Er, what? I strongly suggest you actual read and comprehend WP:OR, as I can't see any excuse for citing that here. Rebecca 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Bad spelling of Sefringle aside, he may have a point in some respect Rebecca. Just providing a book as a reference to back up the information and nothing online could be seen by a casual user as original research. If his view is correct or not is another issue, just be careful you don't bite someone who may not be as experienced in XfD land. Thewinchester (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per corpx, no WP:RS to support WP:N seem to be available. Just another small organisation using wikipedia as webspace or for self-promotion. Thewinchester (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I really don't this argument can be justified on the sources I've seen - they clearly have external notability, and I see no justification for dismissing the article as "a small organisation using wikipedia as webspace". Rebecca 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not for the COI issues, but instead because there don't appear to be any substantial third-party sources asserting notability. Lankiveil 02:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep I added information about the archives that are held in the Center, including those of a national women's lobby group founded in the 1970s. I don't have a lot of knowledge about Australia, so I am loathe to have this article deleted when it does hold the records of national organizations that could be the equivalent of NOW in the U.S. This makes the center more than a "local resource center" per nom. Scarykitty 04:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that makes it unique, but I dont think that establishes notability. Corpx 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? Rebecca 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Being unique should not replace "significant coverage by independent sources". If its unique enough, indpendent sources would've given significant coverage Corpx 05:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I found a couple of other sources which would point to this - one highlighted funding for its creation as one of the most important feminist achievements of the famously reformist Dunstan government, and another which bemoans that an institution of its significance has been defunded. Considering the topic (it's a library, hardly the sort of thing which gets the media in raptures), I think notability is more than established. Rebecca 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Where are the sources so I can take a look? You cant justify a lower notability guideline just because its a library. Corpx 05:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • They're in Factiva, under a search for the topic. If you don't have access to it yourself, you're quite welcome to go to the library. I'm not arguing for a "lower notability guideline" - I'm simply pointing out that there are at least a couple of good pointers to the topic being notable that I've found, plus the book cited in the article, and that this should be more than enough, considering the subject matter. This should hardly be controversial - it's exceedingly obvious that there will be less written on a notable library than, say, a notable band, and to interpret it otherwise would lead to bizarre form of systemic bias. Rebecca 06:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you can provide the links, I could SSH into a school computer and view it. Corpx 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, Factiva doesn't allow linking of that nature. All you need to do is log in and search for the subject of the article. Rebecca 07:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that I searched through factiva and couldnt find any articles - maybe the problem is at my end. Corpx 08:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is. (For the record, I tried to help CorpX on IRC, and he seems to be some different interface I've never seen before. I'm not sure why or how. It should be easily verified by anyone with a normal campus account, though. Rebecca 08:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is an important article among a ream of mostly unwritten articles about the outcomes of the International Women's Year. It could be merged somewhere, but until someone identifies an appropriate merge article, this article is best left to develop. John Vandenberg 07:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is more going for this article relevant to at least three separate threads - Adelaide history, womens movement history, australian resource centres - all reasonable subject areas that the google obsessed will simply not be able to comprehend - a judicious check of australian library on line catalogues will clearly ascertain notability of such a phenomenon, and its existence in various states of australia. The sooner the afd system disallows a google check as a basic determination of notability - the better, there is a lot more to the world than bundled ads SatuSuro 04:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC).
Here Here Scarykitty 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment, so why don't you source and reference the article? The only evidence we have that this place is notable at the moment is your say-so. It might very well be notable, but I'd like to see some proof through third-party references. Lankiveil 06:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC).
Um, I thought I did. See end of this rant for my contribution, with source. I used to have access to Lexis and I know that lots of news worth knowing about and establishing notability is hidden behind databases you have to pay for. Goolge News is very new and they are not able to index many sites. It's a big limitation of Wikipedia when thousands of us are relying only on the internet to determine whether something has "significant coverage by independent sources." I would like to see a project of those folks lucky enough to have unlimited access to paid news databases to source up articles. As for my contribution, sad as it was since I have only the internet to rely on, but it wasn't just "my say-so": See: The collection includes records from a number of Australian women's groups, including the Women's Electoral Lobby, a national lobbying group established in 1972, and issue specific groups such as Women Against Nuclear Energy, Women’s Abortion Action Campaign, and Women’s Action Against Global Violence.[1]. Scarykitty 12:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I hate to be pedantic, but I have two problems so far:
  • WP:N asks for multiple sources. I'm sure you'll have no trouble digging up another, though.
  • I'm not sure that that particular reference that you've provided indicates notability. Firstly, while the collection of this library is no doubt impressive, that doesn't automatically equate to notability. I have a fine collection of classic English political literature on my bookshelf, but that doesn't make Lankiveil's Memorial Reading and Dining Room worthy of an article. Secondly, that particular link seems to be a link to a directory entry - these generally speaking aren't considered to assert the notability of a subject.
I'm well aware that a lot of "good stuff" is hidden in databases and the like, but any reasonably notable or important organisation is bound to have been mentioned on the free web as well. Lankiveil 11:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems to have improved since the initial AfD and within Australia this is notable. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough work has been done on the article to make the cut Recurring dreams 01:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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.