Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of the Birth Centre, Canberra


 * 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   delete. notability requuires multiple detailed sources to be provided. they havent been so the delete side wins Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Friends of the Birth Centre, Canberra

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

fails WP:ORG, nothing in google news. mainly directory listings in google search. article only has 2 reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm glad the Birth Centre has friends. However it does not have its own article so why should its friends? i.e. not WP:Notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean Delete? LibStar (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. To answer Nortwestgnome's question, the answer is simply "Nobody has written it yet."  I'd hate to think that because an article hasn't been written then the subject is not notable.  If that is that's the case we might as well pack up and go home now! :  )  Gillyweed (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I guess I got ahead of myself. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[Non-commercial] Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since when has Google News been the arbiter of what is notable?  There are three perfectly good references.  Maternity Services in Australia are a major battleground at present at the FBC is one of the major players in Canberra.  it's also a member of Maternity Coalition. Gillyweed (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment if it is a major player, wouldn't it naturally follow it would get significant coverage? also from WP:ORG: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. 3 sources is not significant coverage, also:
 * Delete: Far from being "perfectly good references," the sources given aren't any good at all. Notability is not inherited from the Birth Centre, and WP:N holds that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage." (emphasis mine)  This support group isn't the subject of those transcripts; the Birth Centre is.    RGTraynor  10:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RGTraynor is absolutely correct, the sources are primarily about the Birth Centre not Friends of the Birth Centre, WP:N also considers the depth of coverage, if they were specifically primarily about the Friends of the Birth Centre then the sources carry much more weight. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Perhaps it's worth a mention in Maternity Coalition or Canberra Hospital.  Since a Google news search would pick up articles from the Canberra Times, and it hasn't, I think that's a good arbiter of showing that this organization isn't notable enough to get noticed by the local press.  Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Sources are available like Canberra Times and others to write a decent article on it. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are they? I couldn't find any about the Friends (as opposed to about the Birth Centre).  Would you mind telling us what sources you found yourself?    RGTraynor  16:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the Canberra Times only ever puts about 1/4 of its material on line. It's the scabbiest newspaper around.  So online searches are not going to find references to it.  You actually need to do the hard yards and read the Canberra Chronicle and Canberra Times rather than just do a google search.  I've read about them there but I'm not going to spend time going to the National Library to look up back issues of the papers to find references to them.  This is a major drawback of Wikipedia.  If the data is not electronic then apparently the evidence does not exist.  The group is not notable enough to have a book written about it (nor been in existence long enough), but does appear in the CT and the Chronicle but not in electronic form.  So does that mean that the article is deleted?  There are submissions that the group has written on various government websites. Gillyweed (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are submissions that the group has written on various government websites. this only verifies the existence of the group not establish its notability, many non govt organisations and individuals submit stuff all the time to government. it's not a reliable source as it's essentially self written and again doesn't establish notability. if I submit to say 10 government inquiries it doesn't make me notable. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I understand that. I was responding to the view that if there is no electronic information out there, then the group is not notable.  I've explained that the Canberra Times and the Canberra Chronicle only put 25% of their content on the web and therefore finding independent electronic references is difficult.  What I perhaps should have said is not only are the submissions there but also the Government's reponse to them, thus providing some evidence of notability.  Hansard from the ACT Legislative Assembly also refers to the group.  If they were non-notable then they wouldn't be referenced in Hansard.  Gillyweed (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * no hansard is purely a record of what is said in Parliament, for example a MP might mention a group that lobbied him/her to make representations in Parliament. I would have to look closely at the context in Hansard, being mentioned in Hansard doesn't automatically mean notable. please refer to my previous comments re WP:ORG, Wikipedia isn't really into local groups for 1 town/city unless there's significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Obviously, Gillyweed, electronic sources aren't required. Sources that can be verified by other editors are.  Since the official onus is on Keep proponents to supply sources (and not, as many seem erroneously to feel is the case, to blithely speculate that "sources must exist"), I'd be perfectly happy to see a publication cite with the date, author and article name.  I live a subway ride away from the largest public library in the Western Hemisphere and would be glad to verify any citation proffered.    RGTraynor  03:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "Wikipedia isn't really into local groups for 1 town/city ..." Can you point to the policy or guideline that states this? This organisation may not be notable, but not for the reason you have given here. Wikipedia is "into" covering whatever can be verified by multiple reliable sources and meets notability guidelines. -- 03:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:CLUB: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale ... Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area."  RGTraynor  03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * * Well in that case I'd have thought the Stateline reference shows very clearly that the group is discussed by reliable independent sources outside the organisations local area. MangoMango (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Why not just write an article on the Birth Centre itself and mention this group there? Northwestgnome (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant content to Canberra Hospital. There is unlikely to be any sources that will demonstrate independent notability for this organisation, given that its reason for being is inextricably tied to the hospital. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The FBC was established as a consumer voice to counteract the approach taken by The Canberra Hospital to maternity policy and therefore merging it when they are quite separate entities would not work.  I believe that the references cited indicate that the group is notable.  They may not be notable internationally but certainly as a small group in Canberra in conflict with the ACT Government and the TCH, inclusion in WP will provide some information to those seeking it about the group.  MangoMango (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which is, I'm afraid, an illegitimate reason to have an article. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and an article cannot be established just to provide an otherwise non-notable group with free publicity.    RGTraynor  02:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * * Comment You are twisting my words.  I am stating that the references provided show it is notable and meet the notability guidelines.  I simply said that this is a useful article for those seeking information about the group.  I am not stating it is a webhost or a noticeboard.  In fact, I expect this article to be a little more balanced with some criticism of the group added by those who don't like its existence.  Please don't misunderstand what I write. MangoMango (talk) 03:10, 30 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.