Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel


 * 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   snowball keep with consent of nominator. Daniel (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-encyclopedic original research of what are current defence personal. Very little in outside independent sourcing, and lacking notability of this as a topic (as opposed to the individuals or the institution they're associated with).  MBisanz  talk 01:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This nomination is misguided. This is not original research as all the positions and their occupants are listed on the Department of Defence and/or Government Online Directory websites. These websites are authoritative and are only being used to identify the current holder of the position so the fact that they're published by a related organisation is, if anything, a plus as it verifies that the information is up to date. This topic is very notable and encyclopedic as these are the men and women who head Australia's largest government organisations and they're regularly interviewed and quoted in the specialist defence media and general media and their performance will inevitably be covered in military history books. The claim that the topic lacks notability is also not correct on the grounds that most people on the list are individually notable as officers of two-star rank and above are considered automatically notable. Most of the positions they hold and organisations they run are also individually notable. Moreover, as this is listing is restricted to very senior people it doesn't fall foul of WP:NOT. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Mr Dowling here. This article informs the people on exactly what senior officer is running the different sectors within the Australian Defence Force, and the individuals listed on this page are, in fact, particually notable people. I do not understand the claim that this article is "Non-encyclopedic" as the text clearly states how the ADF is structured, and how these senior positions fit into the said structure. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per nick. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep As per Nick Dowling's comments - This nomination is a waste of people's time PalawanOz (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Not one of the claims made Mr MBisanz is explained, nor do they seem to be accurate - either that or I simply don't understand what he's on about: "Non-encyclopedic" It's exactly the sort of stuff that appears in encyclopaedias (refer above). "original research of what are current defence personal" There's not a word of original research in it - all of the information is derived from ADO and/or ADF publications. "Very little in outside independent sourcing" Don't understand. "lacking notability of this as a topic (as opposed to the individuals or the institution they're associated with)" It shows the structure of the Australian Defence Organisation; even in the USA an organisation of around 100,000 people is notable. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per nick. This is the perfect sort of topic for an encyclopedia to cover. AfD hero (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopaedic. Buckshot06(prof) 10:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nick. David Underdown (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per ADF, NickDowling, Abraham and these, which allow for expansion, especially the first. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 23:32, 26 May 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.