Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabetes Australia Victoria


 * 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   merge to Diabetes Australia. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Diabetes Australia Victoria

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

This was written by user:Diabetes.victoria, hence obvious COI. Originally it was a copyvio, and I tagged as speedy; the user then removed the copyright material, and the speedy was declined. The user has now been blocked per WP:SPAMNAME. The article does not have sufficient reliable sources to determine notability (and I can't find any). Non-notable organization  Chzz  ►  02:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Um, wouldn't a merge and redirect to Diabetes Australia be the most appropriate action. From WP:ORG "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process." This really did not need to come to AfD. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @195  · 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I re-wrote the article to remove the copyvio, so that shouldn't be an issue anymore. The chapter's activities have been reported on in the The Age, including , , , , and The Herald Sun, , , both of which are prominent daily newspapers in Melbourne. The Herald Sun "is the highest-circulating daily newspaper in Australia". At the very least, merge with Diabetes Australia.&mdash;C45207 | Talk 03:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Arguments to delete this article are petty. It is well presented and informative and some time and effort has gone into it.  Ajayvius (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the references provided by C45207 are passing mentions in articles that are not about the topic; I do not consider that to be significant coverage. If we are to have a referenced article about this organization, what facts could actually be cited to reliable sources? I would, of course, have no objections at all to "merge", as long as only referenced information were merged; I imagine this could result in a 1-line mention showing that the organization exists.  Chzz  ►  15:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this artical is very informative, and the v.s comentts are very pettyful.--pedro thy master (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC
 * Delete and Merge to Diabetes Australia. Unless this branch of the organisation has attained some notability outside the national body, (which I can't see that it claims to have done) I would merge the article.  florrie  07:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * redirect to Diabetes Australia. I see no individual notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2009 (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.