Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geelong Historical Society


 * 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. A smattering of brief mentions in other contexts does not meet GNG and there is sufficient analysis of the sourcing to confirm that is the case. For an AFD to set aside a guideline or wider accepted inclusion standard a clear consensus is required. That isn't here so the votes based on policy considerations win the day Spartaz Humbug! 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Geelong Historical Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small local society. No significant independent sources, only a smattering of mentions in mostly local sources. Does not meet any notability guideline (specifically: fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG). Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support keeping - I have added some further references to the article and included mention that the society is the third oldest in Victoria, the second largest, and has been involved in numerous commemorative events and dedicating monuments, is often cited as the authoritative source on early Geelong people and history and has also played a major role in the preservation of Geelong's Historic Monuments such as the Barwon Sewer Aqueduct. It was instrumental in the establishment of the Geelong Historical Records Centre as an approved place of deposit for historic local government records, giving it an official role in the preservation of historic records in the state. Having looked at the range of other historical societies with Wikipedia articles List of historical societies, I would say the Geelong article falls in the middle in terms of notability of the subject. Given the significant role that historical societies generally play world-wide in the recording and presentation of history, as a group they might be considered important contributors to Wikipedia projects, so that rather than discourage their participation by over zealous deletion, some greater encouragement could be given, or even some assistance in developing the articles to improve their quality and adherence to Wikipedia standards. After all one of the five pillars WP:IAR tells us to be bold.Garyvines (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with ' interpretation of the soruces and their importance. Being "the third oldest in Victoria" is hardly a claim to notability (actually, being the oldest local history society in Victory wouldn't even be much of a claim either). Of course such a society organizes commemorative events and dedicates monuments. Tnhat only contributes to notability, though, if it has been noted, as verificable through significant coverage in reliable sources, which is not the case here. As for "often cited", that really is something I don't see. The references provided here show a handful of in-passing mentions in mainly local sources. The Geelong Historical Records Centre itself does not really look notable either. It's only logical that such a society has an archive and there's nothing really special about that. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS really isn't a strong argument either. Nor am I convinced that this is a case where IAR is applicable. (Indeed often abused as noted in 's op-ed in this week's Signpost). --Randykitty (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't really see the relevance of 's op-ed - am I right in my reading that he is talking about spam, self promotion and advertising?, not small but significant community organisations which make an important contribution to social capital, something Jimmy Wales was actually on about in starting Wikipedia in the first place. It took you only a few minutes to decide the article was not notable and that it should be deleted - when it might involve hours of research over several weeks of months for someone trying to find the sources and seek out the networks of other editors that can help establish notability. Do you think only fully finished and supported articles should be put up on Wikipedia? If so, this would seem to negate the whole collaborative effort idea, since how will anything last long enough for the collaborators to find it and come up with the additional sources. Perhaps you may have noticed some of the comments on Piotrus's article - quite a few make similar points, such as "Wikipedia deletion processes are drowning in frivolous nominations for deletion: is it a surprise that those who know how to navigate this convoluted system are thriving, while good faith contributors are leaving Wikipedia?" and "if all good faith contributors are chased out of Wikipedia there will be no one left to contribute content that brings readers here, and no one left to fix errors" and in reference to company articles "The point is that amateur editors without expertise in every topic area cannot always be expected to distinguish the stub of a notable firm which should be kept and worked on from a less notable firm whose article appears to be better developed and referenced. We don't want to punish the firm who doesn't spam by deleting a good-faith stub about them which may have been created by a disinterested editor who may not have the time or motivation to finish their stub, and is hoping someone else will do it." I see much of your editing is policework, rather than creating new content.  How about just giving people more time like a warning instead of dragging them off to the lockup.Garyvines (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Piotrus' op-ed has no other significance here than what I already said: it also argues that IAR is otften invoked for no good reason, i.e., to argue for keeping an article on a non-notable subject, as you do here. As for your argument that we should first spend months to research notability, yes, if you get consensus for that view, we can do away with WP:AFD. In the meantime, once an article is at AfD, the onus is upon those arguing for it to be kept to provide sources that show notability. Obviously, I cannot show sources that show non-notability, all I can say is that to the best of my knowledge, significant independent sources don't appear to be available. As for my editing habits, please comment on the issue, not people. As for the warning: there was a PROD giving editors 7 days time to improve the article and come up with sources. Now that it was removed and we are at AfD, there still are 7 days to go to do this. If nobody can come up with good sources in a week, then they're probably not there. BTW, I take offense at your use of the expression "frivolous nominations". This nom is firmly based in policy, please withdraw that remark. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "frivolous nominations for deletions" is comment on Piotrus' op-ed, not mine. My comment on the issue is that eagerness to delete articles created in good faith is limiting inclusiveness and therefore not in the spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative process. I simply ask for greater patience from the deleters - "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception".Garyvines (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I disagree that it fails GNG. I think the referencing could definitely be improved, but it clearly has independent coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you could tell us how it meets GNG. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it meets GNG in the following way: - references so far include nineteen sources in total referring to the society spanning over 60 years, only two of which not independent of the subject, they include a thorough history of the creation of the society. These are reliable third party secondary sources, including newspapers and published books. Sitting down here at the bottom of Australia, and with a special interest in the history of Victoria, Australia,  I recognise my own biases, and could see why others elsewhere in the world would not see this.However, within the admittedly smaller publishing world down here, notability may still be evident at a local level. Garyvines (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, the sources are minor (e.g., the Geelong Advertiser's obituary of Peter Alsopp, a -brief- paragraph on Peter Alsopp mentioning that he has been president of the society), the mentions in, for example, the Burke book are just in passing, as is the mention in the Fyfe book; one "reference" is just a description on a memorial plaque posted on a related web site; the reference of the magazine in Ulrich's is meaningless (Ulrich's is an all-inclusive directory publishing user-provided data); the "reference" to Heritage Australia is a page with a collection of links (and if you click through to the entry for this society, it turns out to be just a directory entry); another "reference" is a Word document with a report on a proposal to nominate something a heritage object that only mentions the society once; etc. There is, in short, not a single independent source discussing the society in-depth, making this a clear fail of GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to concede there is no "single independent source", but the effect of numerous minor references along with the broad chronological coverage might stand for something. Although it is not referring to notability the article WP:NOTFATRAT gives me encouragement that my view is more in the spirit of Wikipedia. In looking through the reasons for notability policies WP:WHYN, I can tick all the boxes: *"significant coverage" so that we can actually write a whole article" - coverage is in a variety of sources over a long time period (- even if they are minor), including one comprehensive history of the subject organisation; *"reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip etc. - the sources are all reliable; *"independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article, tick; *at least one secondary source  - tick; *multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article - tick; *organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed - tick. Again I feel that this article is in the spirit of Wikipedia, and while a narrow and aggressive application of the rules might be applied, I feel my approach is more in keeping with the philosophy of Wikipedia, as Dennis Denuto would say, "its the vibe of the thing".  Garyvines (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Geelong Heritage Centre (itself of dubious notability). All I see are mentions in passing. Did I miss any non-self published source that discusses this in depth? It fails Notability (organizations), and also my proposed liberalization of it, which would accept all regional, national or international organizations recognized as significant by a number of peers. This is a local (city) organization, and I think there is a line we have to draw. Until such a point that someone (newspaper, scholar) writes a piece describing the history of and significance of this org, we are not Yellow Pages, listing all local businesses and NGOs. That said, my op-ed was intended to shine light (and bring flame) to the for-profit spam; this article was created in good faith and is not intended to advertise somebody's business or appease someone's vanity. Unfortunately, not all NGOs are notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment thanks Piotrus for your views. There is a self published source that discusses this in depth, (Peter Mansfield, "The Multiple Births of the Geelong Historical Society", Investigator June 2012 pp.63-70), but of course this would not be admissible under the notability rules. Similarly the large corpus of material published by the society itself would probably not be sufficient. The problem I see, is that there a range of volunteer organisations, which make considerable contributions to the knowledge base in a quiet way, and therefore do not get the sort of secondary promotion that is generated in the for profit section. The result is a very unbalanced coverage in Wikipedia, where the most insignificant and short-lived commercial organisation can meet the rules but a longstanding and prolific volunteer research and publishing organisation that has had an important impact on its local area misses out.Garyvines (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Can the Local History Wiki page [Geelong Historical Society] be modified in sync with whatever is decided here (and can be made use of). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Merge to Geelong Heritage Centre. I appreciate that Australia is a young country, but I would have thought that all public archive repositories were notable.  I note that it is designated by the state institution. Public Record Office Victoria.  The Society would seem to be notable mainly for gathering the collecteion for the Centre and can probably be covered sufficiently in that article.  I am surprised to find that I did not commnet on the previous discussion: I thought that i had.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:18, 3 May 2015 (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.