Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able Australia Services


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Able Australia Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Promotional tone. References are from the organisation Dmol (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PS - I noticed on the author's talk page that this has been deleted before.--Dmol (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find any indication of notability either. Most of the content has been directly taken from http://www.ableaustralia.org.au/aboutus Tagged respectively. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article, created by SPA, lacks the proof of notablity. -- Dewritech (talk)  08:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Article fails to demonstrate notability because its subject lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. → B  music  ian  07:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am rescuing this article! I have completely rewritten the content of this article. Removing the copy and pasted sections. According to the notability guidelines under companies and organizations, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." It is fair to state that the vast majority of its audience will be unable to find a use for such content because of communication difficulties. While it is a small organization, (of about 100 people according to records), it still serves a regional purpose and is one of two Australian deafblind services. Their website and information may seem terrible, but their audience typically will not have the means to access useful information. Though I have found numerous interviews and included two of them into the article, more can be found on Deaf Blind Awareness week, but I see no attribution they came up with it, but have a focus in the media on it. It is backed and funded partly by the government. While the occurrence is rare, Able Australia seems to be highly active in the community and has numerous interviews, specials and programs specialized for the individuals. There is loads of information, interviews and content independent of the website that is hosted around the net, even though the primary audience (affected with Deafblindness) will be unable to access these materials and the secondary audience (Australians as a whole community) are unfamiliar with the condition and its difficulty. Do to the audience matters, Able Australia, while notable, can come across as an 'awareness' group, but it in fact takes charge in addressing the problem as well. It should stay because it meets notability requirements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete—I salute the rescue efforts of User: ChrisGualtieri, but I still don't think the article is quite there. I reviewed the sources added, and they all still seem like recast press releases.  When considering how far a source goes to prove notability, you have to ask if a source's coverage is largely based on information published by the subject itself.  There's a spectrum here, such as a press release being reposted word-for-word (which does not suggest notability) to a major publisher taking a release and using it as a foundation for independently researched coverage.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, the coverage which sources this article falls closer to the former side of that spectrum, than the latter.  Hence my weak delete.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question if you mind, how are various interviews and news broadcasts, radio programs and such questionable? Also in the rewrite I do not use any of their own press releases, though typically such press releases are important to any non-profit or government agency. Under WP:CORPDEPTH, these interviews and announcements are all acceptable. It also meets the independent requirement because being on regional or national level TV (many times) is also notability. Its not even public access, but prime news segments. Under WP:NONPROFIT it meets the alternative requirement as well because it is a national focus with lobbying and scope, but regionally locked in actual care of deafblind individuals. I quite disagree with your assessment because the guidelines state that even the information I have found so readily prove notability. Just because something is foreign or specific in scope doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose and merit an article. Its government recognized, funded and promoted on their own pages. Typically if the government finds something notable enough to list it prominently, should we at least have an article on it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:ORG. if this organization has existed since 1967 I would expect a lot more coverage. The 7.30 and sky news appearance isn't enough to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2012 (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.