Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Swag of Aussie Poetry


 * 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   keep. Nomination withdrawn. All discussion assertions point towards keep outcome. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A Swag of Aussie Poetry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is not notable Article is a long list of links that are off-topic and puffery. Unsourced and a search shows no independent sources available do not to support notability. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   01:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn: given the level of support will result in keep, improvements to referencing, and some good points raised in keep comments below, I am happy to withdraw and have the nomination closed. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   01:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have to admit that I'm concerned that the editor that created this page listed himself as a RS, knows the producer, and also created an entry on himself... Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: there is clear COI however the issue is that just because something exists, that doesn't make it notable. Also there is not one independent, verifiable source provided. The article is, essentially, a record of interview that can't be verified, and a long list of wikilinks to famous Australians that may, or may not have, contributed to an album of no notability. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   06:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Originally issued in 1984 or 1985 with 50 tracks by notable Australians performing/reading from works by notable Australian poets. The 21st century version is a historical record of this material. Certainly more work is needed for MoS and other issues but it should be kept.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Shaidar in that the work is a significant work, purely based on the fact it is notable Australians performing works by other notable Australians. Dan arndt (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the Australians are notable (and I agree they are), isn't that relevant to an article about that person? Similarly if the works are notable, and again I agree they are, doesn't notability apply to the original poetry? I'm not certain that the Album which is the subject of the article, i.e an aggregation of existing works, is notable. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it


 * Keep because it is the best option right now, this is not like other albums which can be merged easily to a central discography or their performer pages. This album will either exist or be deleted and is in the National Library, which pushes towards GNG and N. It is unusual, but I'd rather keep something unique unless a proper fitting inclusion for a merge can be found and an appropriate redirect can be made. There also is some possibly it meets GNG on its own as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't agree being catalogued by the National Library makes the album N since I'm also in there and I'm certainly not notable :) I do agree that it is unique and since the article has been improved considerably I am happy to keep and will withdraw my nomination. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   01:56, 8 June 2013 (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.