Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Club of Australia

:{{la|Doctor Who Club of Australia}} ([{{fullurl:Doctor Who Club of Australia|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Club of Australia}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This was tagged for speedy deletion, but I'm not convinced it meets speedy deletion criteria, so I'm bringing it here for more input. --Aude (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It was me that tagged the article for deletion as I don't believe that it indicated notability and doesn't carry any references. The author of the article has made a defence of it on his talk page User talk:Antony Howe. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I found a couple of news mentions for the club with a [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22doctor+who+club+of+australia%22 Google News] search—also, a few for the [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%22whovention%22&ie=UTF-8 Whovention]. Don't know whether this is enough to pass WP:CLUB—I'm inclined to think it isn't, since they've been around since the 1970s—but it might help. Graymornings_(talk) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Is User talk:Antony Howe the first President mentioned in the article? If so there is COI here also. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Close Deadly ssassin, the nomination for speedy deletion under A7 was unfounded. The article quite clearly states its own notability, as would satisfy WP:NOTE, let alone the lower [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#a7 A7 standard] which was cited as the reason for nominating for Speedy.

:"The first objective of the club was to oppose the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) in 1976 to cease purchasing the Doctor Who TV series. Eventually the ABC changed its mind, and the series has been a regular part of Australian TV ever since, see Doctor Who in Australia, section on "Broadcasting")."

:A7 is quite clearly not applicable here, by two degrees of evidence against.

:Considerably less inappropriate is the listing of this issue on AfD. However, by Aude's own admission, he is "bringing it here for more input", which is not the purpose of AfD. An RFC to ask whether it should be listed on AfD would be the appropriate way to Request For Comment.

:And finally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest" Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion."] Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

:* The COI issue was not a reason why I marked for deletion, it was a note to the author so that they were aware of Wikipedia's attitude to that. As I've explained here and on the author's talk page, my concerns were around notability. As regards notability, I fail to understand why what you have quoted shows notability. It explains how the club came to be, and what happened after the club was formed, there's no evidence or even assertion that the two are linked. In my opinion the article doesn't meet WP:NOTE or A7. Clearly Aude didn't agree with regards to A7 hence why we're here. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

::*I think Anarchangel was referring to Bduke with the COI comment. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

:::* Possibly but I was not arguing for deletion. I was just commenting to clarify whether there was a COI or not. I'll give my view below.

• Delete A big, giant slab of original research. Remove the content that isn't reliably, independently sourced and there is nothing left. Wikipedia is not a club history site. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. As it stands this does not have reliable independent sources that show me it is notable enough for an article so i have to support deleting it. However, I am open to being convinced as this association seems to have been around for long enough to have attracted attention enough that sources should exist. If they are found, I will change my view, but I am not enough of a fan to find such sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete nn. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:GROUP#Non-commercial organizations. WWGB (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'm ready to vote delete. I don't think we're going to find any more sources, and any notable club that's been around that long should have more than just a few news mentions. Graymornings_(talk) 10:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• I cannot understand why you are planning to delete this oage when an there is an entry for the Doctor Who Appreciation Society, which founded in the same year as the Doctor Who Club of Australia. DallasJones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallasljones (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:* Other stuff exists is not a valid reason to keep an article. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:18, 22 January 2009 (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.