Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bendigo street housing campaign


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. After some good discussion which helped me unearth some additional sources on this, I’ve decided to withdraw. I’ll be stripping back the article and rebuilding from the ground up. Any help would be welcomed! (non-admin closure) Triptothecottage (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Bendigo street housing campaign

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is promotional in tone and appears to have been created by COI editor. Although the episode is worthy of coverage in the East West Link (Melbourne) article, it is not individually notable and the campaign has received only incidental coverage in the course of charting opposition to the road tunnel. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Main editing seems to be by an WP:SPA but so what if it is referenced appropriately. WP:COI by an editor is not grounds for deletion if they present a WP:NPOV.  This is not a single event.  This is not just news.  This is not simply a subset of the East West Link but has taken on a life of its own separate from the East West Link.  Yes there is some definite scope for clean up, but it is not a WP:TNT either.  There seems to be quite sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG in its own right.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TMA! ;) Triptothecottage (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They are are registered shortcut redirects, specifically relevant to the points of debate? BTW, WP is not an AFZ.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral/Mixed - Notability is distinctly weak in areas - evictions, timeline are both lacking entirely. That aside, much of the range of sources only comes in the background section - which doesn't provide any standalone notability as it is a subset of the East-West line article. Sources on the actual subject matter are: Green Left Weekly - not a neutral source. Homeless Persons Official website - which is OR. ABC which is a good source, The Age, also a reasonably good source. Bendigo Advertiser also seems to have some articles on it, which could be added - quality of articles seem reasonable, unsure of any bias level. My view is somewhat mixed - clearly individual sections lacking sufficient suitable sources doesn't impact a whole article's notability. Whether 2 good sources on the core article matter provides sufficient notability - I'm leaning towards yes, but if there are arguments otherwise, let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify for you and any others who might like some background, the Age and Bendigo Advertiser are both published by Fairfax Media and consequently duplicate a lot of content on their sites. Given the story originates in Melbourne I'd suggest the coverage you found began life as an Age article and is now duplicated across various Fairfax mastheads. Fairfax as a whole is usually accused of leaning left but generally speaking offers high-quality news coverage. Ditto the ABC. Right-wing coverage would be found in the Herald Sun] or [[The Australian if it exists at all, for non-Australian readers. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for that. So while I shouldn't ref equivalent ones, there were lots of Advertiser articles - more than on Age. So there might well be something in the former that the latter lacks, and would still presumably be reliable? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nup, if they’re cross-published they’ll be identical. That said, trying to find any articles to illustrate the theory, I couldn’t find any coverage of this episode in the BA. Everything that came up in my GNews search relates to Bendigo, which is a different place some 200km away. Anyway, long way off topic now! Triptothecottage (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I would input as a resident of Collingwood at this time that this page is vital to publishing truths that were smeared throughout the media, it also exposes many many breaches of the charter of human rights in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.81.190 (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actual Keep*
 * Comment I'm undecided, but any "keep" decision would need to be conditional on removing all unsourced content per WP:OR and resolving clear WP:POV problems. Squatting and all its political or social implications was nothing new to Melbourne. What made this special? Why isn't it part of a much broader article similar to Squatting in the United States? Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the relevance of generalised squatting is here: it was a specific campaign (and one extremely well-covered in mainstream media) with specific demands related to housing and homelessness that had nothing to do with the "political or social implications" of squatting, whatever they are. It was as much about squatting as the Franklin Dam campaign was about the issues of people who like chaining themselves to trees. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Received tons of mainstream media coverage from all major media outlets active in Victoria. Needs a good bit of cleanup for the COI issues and to tighten up on referencing, but it's still clearly notable. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2018 (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.