Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANZAC spirit

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Will tag for cleanup.-Splash 23:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

ANZAC spirit
Personal research BrowardHick 07:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Reserve. The article sucks and is massively POV, but the topic isn't inherently unencyclopedic.  --Apyule 07:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fernando Rizo and Agamemnon2. --Apyule 01:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a common expression and idea used by Australian politicians. The article is very poor but the concept has been extensively studied.Many see The Anzac spirit as an integral part of defining what it is to be Australian. Personally I believe it is a load of bollocks but it is a definite concept and should be allowed to run.--Porturology 11:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've got good old Marine Corps spirit, but note that mine is a red link. Subject doesn't strike me as encyclopedic, and if it is it can get a brief mention in ANZAC. Fernando Rizo TC 18:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * but American exceptionalism is in blue. Same crappy, outdated jingoistic thing.--Porturology 06:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect Trollderella 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Every darn nation in the world has its version of this concept, will we add them all next? (us Finns have this thing called "sisu"). --Agamemnon2 21:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? I'm not even remotely Finnish, but I'd say sisu is quite a notable concept. -- Visviva 03:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Commonly used term throughout Australia and New Zealand. Needs a rewrite, though. Grutness...  wha?  02:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic. Nandesuka 13:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs a rewrite, but the concept seems notable enough Sam Vimes 21:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs a rewrite and expansion, but it is noteworthy. PredatorX 12:28, 26 August 2005 (GMT+12)
 * Keep Needs some work, and in particular needs some references, but it is a passable starting point. GregorB 22:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment the newly restored version is much better. I will add a good paper reference- it is not in public domain on the internet.
 * Delete as bullshit (I'm Australian, I can say that ;-). However, if it were rewritten entirely, I would suggest keep. I'd dispute the "right-wing" designation as well.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that as an Australian you have never heard John Howard speak of the Anzac Legend/Spirit? I see that you are at the University of Adelaide. Look up the referance and it will give you plenty to read. The main point of this Vfd is to decide if a thing is notable enough for an encyclopaedia. This subject will offend some people's POV no matter what is written but that needs to be sorted out on the article's discussion page, not at VFD --Porturology 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it exists, its studied at length in refereed journals, its part of Howard's common political rhetoric. Fifelfoo 06:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. How does such rubbish get into Wiki[edia. The first sentence used the word mythology. The second sentence uses the word myth. Following that is bollocks presented as fact, such as During the 1950s and 1960s, due to lack of observance of ANZAC day in general society, the idea of a unique ANZAC spirit began to fade. What garbage. The Anzac parades in Sydney during those years were huge. Yes, there is an Anzac spirit, (see Kiwis and Aussies partying together in London) but this article is a crock. Moriori 21:36, August 30, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.