Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Managers' Association Australia


 * 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   no consensus. Good arguments have been made as to why the lack of Google News hits does not necessarily prove unsourceability. However, I'd strongly recommend someone actually find and reference some of these notional pre-internet sources, because the article is still rather lacking in that department. ~ mazca  talk 10:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Club Managers&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  --  Bduke    (Discussion)  10:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed info has been added "Leagues Club Association of New South Wales it produced a joint submission to the Productivity Commission on Australia's gambling industries". the source is not third party coverage and does not qualify as a reliable source as it merely hosts a submission made by the organisation. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are trying too hard. Trade Unions are important bodies that relate to governments and the community as well as their members. This is a small union, but it seems likely that it has been noticed. For example this journal article, Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, March 22, 1997 by Roache & Gerard, appears to discuss it and praise its efforts, but that volume is not available to me. The reference above is not a good reference to establish notability, but it is an Australian Government site so it is third party. It allows other editors to join me in looking to see whether there was press coverage at the time for that productivity commission investigation. Note this was in the 1990s. Google News will be quite useless. There are other submissions such as this one on gaming machines in Victoria in 2008. This is a hot topic in Melbourne and it may well have been considered in depth by the newspapers. I remain neutral for now, but think that sources may well be out there. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Australian Government site so it is third party."" no the productivity commission is merely hosting all submissions by interested parties. it is not indepth coverage by a third party about the organisation. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It not say it was "indepth coverage by a third party about the organisation". I explained why I added it. Why not look for sources yourself rather than wasting my time. Your use of gnews only in the nom was quite inadequate. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * it's not inadequate, you're the one that wants to keep it not me. why should I look for sources when I am editing other articles? LibStar (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that is what you are supposed to do before you nominate an article for deletion. gnews is inadequate for an organisation that goes back decades. We are not just concerned about only recent times. I am not wanting to keep it. I said neutral above. I am just giving it some due diligence which all articles should have before they are deleted. Nobody else is, so I decided to have a look. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

gnews contains coverage for over 100 years. it includes Sydney Morning Herald for many decades too. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Bduke - passes notability, based on pre-internet sources. Libstar, Google News really doesn't cut it for Australian topics before a certain point. As a fun activity, I looked up three discredited former ministers from the early 90s from my state and couldn't find even one on Google (other than a cursory reference to his present job), and only cursory references on Factiva. No mention at all of controversies so serious that they cost one his job, another his liberty and got them named in the findings of a Royal Commission, even with a specific search for the years concerned with only the name used as a search term. Orderinchaos 05:06, 22 October 2010 (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.