Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Wireless

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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future nomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Wireless

Melbourne Wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Sources are either semi-promotional, primary or irrelevant. All GBooks and news hits are passing mentions or listings, certainly nothing that passes

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep. I have just noticed this AfD. The nom did not sign the nomination. The article has been on Wikipedia for 15 years. The nomination was 2 weeks ago. Nobody has commented in that time. Clearly it is an article that does not attract attention. The references are not strong, but it looks as if some are independent. I am inclined to think that it might contain useful reliable information for somebody, so a weak keep. --Bduke (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Bduke: Sorry about missing the signature. Twinkle was playing up that day and I'm not in the habit of doing AfD noms manually. (Does the signature affect the listing in some way? I checked it was on the log so thought everything was OK). As to the references, 1 is the only substantial one and is written by a member of the group, so hardly independent; 2 is a passing mention only; 3 and 4 are primary sources, submissions to a parliamentary committee by the group; 5 is a listing on the group's website; 6 is a forum thread; and 7 is another listing. The only other sources I could find were Why I founded Melbourne Wireless (obviously promotional), a passing mention in this blog post (which has actually appeared since my original nom) and a few other random bits and pieces. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No, the absence of a signature is not important. I just came across an AfD with no information on the proposer and no comments in two weeks. I wanted to draw some attention to it. I agree the sources are weak. I live in Melbourne but had never heard of this organisation, but it now seems it has had some impact here. I hope others will comment. There are worse articles still here. --Bduke (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2019 (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.