Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Wireless (2nd nomination)

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. bd2412 T 02:05, 20 May 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)

Previous discussion closed as no consensus without prejudice to renomination, so I'll try again with some more detailed analysis and hopefully Twinkle not stitching me up this time.

Considering sources present in the article against

1. About the only good source in existence, goes into some detail about the organisation but is written by a member so borderline on independence.
2. Trivial mention in article about wikis.
3. Primary source, the organisation's submission to an Australian parliamentary committee. (This and 4 are the only references used to assert significance in the article).
4. Similar to 3.
5. Primary source, organisation's own website.
6. Forum thread, therefore not reliable.
7. Dead link to webcam feed.

Other sources found on a search:

• Trivial or listing mentions in books here and here.
• Trivial mention here
• Blog post by founder here
• and a variety of listings and forum posts.

I found nothing on a search of news and science databases.

In summary, this organisation simply doesn't come near NORG and doesn't look to be notable by any other measure. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article looks informative and encyclopedic.
  talk) 11:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Sources do not demonstrate notability. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (formerly a keep vote). The following is my previous opinion with the keep vote: The arguments presented can be fixed with good edits to the article, and I do not see any glaring problems against it that would cause the article to be deleted. Trivial information in existence is not a reason against an article, and there are sources that I have found that can be used to improve the article.
  talk) 02:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Striking through text, regardless of where it is located in the vote, seems to remove the vote entirely from the AfD stats tools. Testing whether this archived vote appears in the statistics. Sorry for any hassle. Utopes (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    UtopianPoyzin: My rationale for deletion is a lack of notability, which is independent of the quality of the article. If you have found useful sources to demonstrate notability perhaps you could supply them here. I would appreciate it. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Switching to delete, the article is not encyclopedic as written, and I can't imagine it improving much more.
      talk) 02:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Problems with current sourcing is well explained by the nom. Lack of coverage is a glaring problem that can't be fixed with edits. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:49, 16 May 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.