Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Conservative


 * 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. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the relevant notability guideline. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Australian Conservative

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. No reliable independent references, notability not demonstrated, fails all criteria at WP:WEB. WWGB (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep'. Highly notable website. Has articles written by very notable Senators (Cory Bernardi and Barnaby Joyce). Meets criteria 4 at WP:WEB.Timbracks13 (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean? There isn't a criteria 4.  -- Lear's Fool 01:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Keep !voter (and author of the article) has been banned as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nominator. -- Lear's Fool 01:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, zero independent sources. Assertions of WP:ITSNOTABLE aside, there has been no credible demonstration of notability. Having notable people post on your blog once in a while does not make your blog notable.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - What a clear CSD... why is our time wasted with this? Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I see nothing to indicate that it meets WP:WEB, and in particular, it fails to meet the non-existent point 4 whatever that may be. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability. It's worth nothing that the article was created by a sock puppet of a blocked editor. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above - insufficient coverage to show notability. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:35, 17 May 2011 (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.