Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cave Clan (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Singu larity  08:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cave Clan
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another non-notable urban exploration-related group. While they have made the news on a few occasions, a large section of the content involves describing their members background, general safety issues (really, don't go into drains when it's raining?), and general graffiti text. This can really be summed up better at urban exploration without mention of the Cave Clan. seicer |  talk  |  contribs  05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep While not evident in the article, this group features heavily in local press and is regarded by many as a local institution. I understand your concerns. It just needs more work. Dmod (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads like a self-bio. Don't see any explanation in the article as to how this club could be even remotely notable. If it is featured in local press, like the above user asserted, local sourcing needs to be added to the article, and incorporated into some sort of explanation why any of the rest of us should care.Helixweb (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This group are well known throughout Australia, they often get mentioned in the media, and have helped the federal government in Anti-terrorism matters. With members across Australia, and in areas of europe, the US & Canada, they are possibly the largest Urban exploration group in the world. It seems recent deletions and straying from topic have been primarily due to one editor. Once this issue has been resolved I have no doubt the positive editors can make this into an informative and appropriate article. S.Nadir (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * often? Try once in the last 12 months, according to Factiva. Even "urban explorer/exploration" gets more hits. Orderinchaos 09:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't Factiva index financial and commercial news? It's not surprising they only got one hit. S.Nadir (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, seems to be a promotional by a non-notable group. I am aware of them off-wiki but it's really not stuff that would normally be considered within encyclopaedic coverage and would be very difficult indeed to reliably source. Orderinchaos 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The are several reliable sources in the article; I have just added two more, could you take another look? Celarnor Talk to me  13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The group *is* a rather major urban exploration organisation, recognised (whether they love 'em or hate 'em) by urban explorers worldwide. While this article has been POV disrupted in the past, it *is* well referenced. Perhaps there *are* a couple of lame parts to it (no draining when raining, for example), but none of these really justify a deletion. They've been around since the mid 80's and in that time their members (and there's a lot of them) have discovered sites worldwide. Quite notable, with the references to back it up. SMC (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —SMC (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It reads like an advert and is not a notable subject. There is not a lot of content that can be added to this article, as the Clan prefer to keep most of their activities secret, so finding more refs would be quite difficult. And the history section about a group of guys discovering some guys name written in cement in a drain and then meeting the guys sister sound ridiculous. The most recent addition to the activities section should also come out as this reads a lot like an adventure tourism promo.. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, the idea of the sister etc. was to clarify that their "inspiration" was in fact not an urban explorer but rather a drain builder. SMC (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an improvement argument, not a deletion argument. There are more references in this article than there are on many that get kept in AfDs.  They are all substantial.  I have added two more sources; one is BBC coverage.  Could you have a look at it again?  Celarnor Talk to me  13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count on Adam changing his view. He's very much opposed to this group, evidenced through his talk page contributions. SMC (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt this article would have attracted the nomination for deletion had it not been for all Adam's counter-productive edits. S.Nadir (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been on the back of my mind for a while, after seeing other urban exploration/ghost-related groups go by the wayside. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wayside? the level of hot discussion here indicates very much otherwise. Perhaps you're a little jealous seicer? 119.11.7.53 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I and several other editors have been trying to clean this article up prior to this AFD, even attempting to address some of the concerns here (ie. referencing), but these efforts were reverted by Adam. I see he's been indef blocked for harassing another user. Perhaps we'll have a proper chance now of improving this article. SMC (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   —SMC (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable urban exploration group. I'm not even from Melbourne, and I know who they are and what they do.  Adequately references, as far as I am concerned.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Very weak keep and cleanup I don't like urban exploration-cruft, but this organisation is the subject of a few in-depth stories in major Australian newspapers and TV news each year. If there was an Urban exploration in Australia article I'd support this material being merged into it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems to have very little notability outside its immediate area. See WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources.". That seems to be very much the case here.  Celarnor Talk to me  13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. They easily meet general notability guidelines and organization notability guidelines; I can't quite understand why others are thinking it doesn't.  Subject is discussed in multiple, reliable, verifiable sources.  Celarnor Talk to me  13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not wild about that the Keep proponents include SPAs and editors under block for edit warring on this article. Nonetheless, enough of the sources check out and refer to articles about this group to pass notability standards.    Ravenswing  14:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable as above and reasonable pages hits for the article confirm that. SunCreator (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this organisation is "worthy of note". Most well known organization for an unconventional but well documented pastime.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable organisation, numerous references in place. At least some of the cleanup requested last time seems to have taken place. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:53, 12 April 2008 (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.