Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council of International Students 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 keep. WP:DINC (non-admin closure) sst✈  05:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Council of International Students Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mostly a directory, this article lacks the sourcing to suggest this organization is notable, and such organizations are certainly not automatically notable. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the national representative body for international students in Australia, and a major policy organisation in issues relating to higher education. This set of nominations are utterly bizarre: Drmies is running around nominating organisations with long histories and detailed book and newspaper coverage going back decades; it takes only the tiniest of knowledge of the subject to know that the collapse of this organisation's direct predecessor made very memorable national news, and in this case I found about ten major newspaper articles specifically about it in the first three pages of Google. I know he's a prominent editor, but this is the sort of set of nominations that deserves a block for disruption. (For context, this editor nominated the Monash University student union, an organisation with a UC Berkeley-like history that is ridiculously well reported on in all manner of sources, for speedy deletion, which shows the level of diligence that went on beforehand.)  The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This editor is trying to make this personal? I see no actual arguments here for keeping it, like links to discussion of the subject in reliable sources. If the editor wishes to argue that this nomination is somehow in bad faith, and that somehow I need to be blocked for nominating this horribly poorly referenced articles that consists mostly of chatter and directory information, I'll wait for the ANI nomination. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you nominated one of the most historically significant and heavily written about (in books and journals, etc.) student unions in the southern hemisphere for speedy deletion, and when I approached you on your talk page responded with this. It may well be poorly referenced, and on Wikipedia we have a specific tag for that purpose to alert other editors to the issue: people acting in genuine good faith don't usually mass nominate every article in the broad subject area for deletion without the slightest attempt at research or regard to (or even interest in) notability. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And, if you *had* acted in good faith, in this case, you might have turned up things like this about them directly, this article specifically focusing on their latest campaign, this article about their internal workings, this on another issue they raised, and many examples like this of them being quoted on any mainstream media about international students. I found these in a five-minute Google News search (CISA being the newest of the organisations you targeted and the easiest to cover online), but I use it to demonstrate the utter lack of even a basic Google you did before blanket nominating the entire sector for speedy deletion or AfD. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - You said "...organisations with long histories and detailed book and newspaper coverage going back decades; it takes only the tiniest of knowledge of the subject to know that the collapse of this organisation's direct predecessor made very memorable national news..."
 * This organization was formed in 2010 according to the article. That's not a long history. What happened to this organization's predecessor lends no automatic notability to the subject of this article, as notability is not inherited. However, you apparently have found a few good references, so perhaps those could be added to the article, as it has none right now that show evidence of notability. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  13:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article certainly needs a cleanup to remove the directory aspects of the article, but as The Drover's Wife has indicated above, there are certainly sources available to confirm the entity's notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears notable, and has encyclopedic value. Unclear why nominator wishes to delete. Aeonx (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (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.