Talk:We Are North Melbourne

Untitled
Three reasons for deleting this entry were stated, so I'll respond to those in turn:

Firstly, that We Are North Melbourne is shortly lived supporter group. This is incorrect. We Are North Melbourne was incorporated as a legal entity in November 2007 and is an ongoing concern with a current website.

Secondly, that We Are North Melbourne received no independent coverage form North Melbourne. Given the purpose of the group (as its name implies) I would have thought this is fair enough. The existence of We Are North Melbourne is intrinsically linked with the North Melbourne Football Club. It played a role in an issue of historical interest and significance. I would have thought this is of interest to Wikipedia users.

Thirdly, yes I am involved with WANM, so there is a conflict of interest. But I understand that who has written the material should be irrelevant, so long as Wikipedia policies are closely adhered to. In this case I have attempted to write from a neutral point of view and have cited references for anything that might be contestable. According to the guidelines, "an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias." And I would welcome this kind of review.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Dave.wheaton (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines and I would be please to get some advice on what exactly is considered advertising in this article so I can revise it.... Dave.wheaton (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant guidelines are notability, and reliable sources. In order to be included as an article, notability must be proven with reliable sources used to cite the article.  If the subject was never covered extensively by third-party reliable sources, then there shouldn't be an article devoted to it here.  Them  From  Space  02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This article isn't blatant advertising, but it does need a lot of help. It squeaks by avoiding an A7 CSD because it does make a claim at significance, but it probably would not survive an AfD.  You need to show that this group is notable---eg get some of that media coverage that you mentioned.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I have now added several references to media coverage. Hopefully this does the trick?Dave.wheaton (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD
This article survived an AfD, which I closed as a "no consensus". However, this doesn't vindicate the article from content problems; while problems sometimes are in the eye of the beholder, "Passionate Beginnings" as a section title is one of a few reasons that I think this article needs to be rewritten a bit to comply with NPOV standards. One (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I will change the "Passionate Beginnings" title and am happy to look at other changes, if you can tell me what you think they should be? Dave.wheaton (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)