Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Walk Networking


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Walk Networking


*Delete currently a self-promotion showpiece. Without expansion and secondary sources I doubt it'd ever become anything more. -- Longhair\talk 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Public awareness walk, tagged for COI; regardless there no evidence to suggest that anyone even noticed it going on; delete --Peta 09:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 09:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Article has greatly improved since my comments above, changing to Keep. -- Longhair\talk 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep however lack of context - is what concerns me, there was a context in which the original project began - and there is no mention of that or the other groups with which it evolved - the editor claims needs time to add material... bit concerned that the editor was a newbie - and no attempt was made to 'welcome' the new user or give a benefit of doubt... SatuSuro 11:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Extra comment - as there is a lack of context that is not necessarily the editors fault - I have started Conservation Council of Western Australia but even this is short in providing adequate context for the phenomenon of conservation organisations in western australia between 1980 and 1996 when the above organisation had appeared to have stopped its regular printed publications....SatuSuro 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I suspect that if I dug deep enough, I would discover that SatuSuro is right: this is a small but not insignificant part of the historic fabric of conservation and biodiversity awareness in Western Australia. But even if notable, is it verifiable? Hesperian 12:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, As a comparison, consider Folly Fellowship and its corresponding Afd.  I would like to see more references, even if they are not online; local newspaper articles are acceptable.  I agree with SatuSuro; please dont steamroll this one as it will take time to find offline references. John Vandenberg 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I am aware that guidelines exist for Wiki articles and also that there are guidelines for nomination for deletion. At the risk of sounding as if I am taking this personally (I am not) I will say that I am disappointed by the off-hand manner in which this process has been conducted by certain individuals, noting in particular that the first request for deletion came within 24 hours of the article's first appearance, by an editor who also removed the the stub notice.   I take it that I should have placed the article under 'conservation,' however I'll repeat that this is my first article at Wiki.  Part of my learning curve has been to realise editors here bounce back and forth between their own discussion pages to 'talk'...and that more comments existed than those on the GWN talk page. (continued without indent)

Of the editors and administrators who've commented so far, I'd like to thank SatuSuro for following nomination guidelines by welcoming me as a newcomer, suggesting improvements and finally for looking for references himself to improve the Great Walk Networking page. Also, for his thoughtful commentary: SatuSuro appears to know what Great Walk Networking is. In addition, Jayvdb has added further references: both since the request AFD notice went up.

In addition, on the GWN Talk page I've clearly indicated that the Great Walk "does not seek new members, financial contribution, nor does it seek to self-promote: This is not a 'non-notable autobiography or advertising/promotional page.'" Reference to the COI page lists: Self-promotion:

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates.

Examples of these types of material include:

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

The Great Walk Networking article does not fit these criteria, especially with the addition of external references that would render the claims of the page verifiable. I believe this point has been fully addressed on the GWN Talk page. While I am a member of GWN, I am not on a membership drive or attempting to promote an event. My genuine belief is that, with the help of others as has occurred during the last couple of days, this single concern will be addressed when the documentary from 1990 on GWN is digitalised and made available online, early copies of "Bambaroo" are made available online, and members of the GWN and other people from Western Australia are able to edit and enhance this page.

The only other grounds that have been made for deletion are notability. Again, with references that are available, but offline and will take time to source, there is no ground for deletion on notability criteria. I am concerned, however, that some (judging by comments on talk pages) are already using biased language to discuss grounds for deletion: "greenies", "bunch of bushwalkers", "itching" for a deletion, "It really could be speedied, and I certainly wouldn't blink an eye if you went ahead and did it..." In addition, no reason has been associated for this AFD and the person who made the nomination hasn't entered into the debate at all (in any meaninful way), so I can't address her concern directly.

There is a regretable lack of history regarding this type of movement: State funds have not been made available for anything other than a statewide history of the environment movement, and no one has been willing to undertake that task because the topic is too broad to prepare a meaningful history. Great Walk Networking is a unique example of a group that has a 20 year history, starting off as a protest event but evolving into a grassroots conservation movement. It does not lobby, form direct action, petition or engage in activities normally associated with conservation groups. Instead it provides opportunity to literally 'Walk' the land...both pristine and damaged...to people of all age groups. It is more than a bushwalking association...and arguably more closely linked to the One Voice Movement in philosophy. It is notable and of historical significance to the conservation movement and would make a good entry to this encyclopedia.

Offline sources spread between Denmark and Perth have been difficult to source, but the process is underway. I also ask that the page not be steamrolled. It's under development, hence the stub notice

I also thank Hesperian for removing the COI and comments made on the GWN Talk page.

Kind regards, --Greatwalk 10:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,


 * Keep Plenty verifiable and notable for me. I don't see a problem with this article staying on and improving further.  As an aside, can I say how nice it is to come across an articulate and civil new editor who's first encounter with Wikipedia is having her first article AfD'd.  Sadly we seem to be being overrun with editors of the other type lately.  I hope User:Greatwalk stays on and contributes further as we need the help &mdash;Moondyne 10:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, the article shows both verifiablity and notability of the topic. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is well written and sourced and demonstrates enough notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Where are you people seeing "verifiablity and notability". Please discuss the sources because no one has backed up anything. There are NO souces at all. Numbers 2 and 3 are merely lists of non profit organisations with this organisation being mentioned in the list, not nobitibility is shown at all here to meet the WP:ORG standard. The 1st reference does not mention the organisation at all. No other verifiability or assertion of notibility, so it fails WP:N and WP:V. Further reading is two newsletters, and the book is only published and distributed locally and does not show any notibility of its own. Is it bad luck for the author it is but Wikipedia has standards because small non notable organisations like this are not encylopedic. To be kept it should haven notable media coverage etc. I did not found any mention when searching QLD newspapers back to 1995.--Dacium 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct that reference 1 does not mention GWN. That's because it is a reference for the Campaign to Save Native Forests and South West Forest Defence Foundation organisations are mentioned in the text of the article.   It would be illogical for every reference having to mention the article name.  &mdash;Moondyne 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Your last comment says everything. QLD newspapers are not the location of source of western australian environmental organisations. By the citeria you are setting, notability of considerable numbers of articles thoughout wikipedia would be taken off - many Australian state based organisations and issues in between states are simply not reported  - have a look in national library of australia - is it mentioned there? Also - I challenge you to find any reference to the west coast tasmania wilderness railway in a western australian newspaper - it consumed the daily press the examiner and hobart mercury weekly  because of nefarious dealings all around - i bet that never hit qld or wa press once....  Please try to look beyond newspaper sources.  And to go to 1995 shows the article has not been read properly 1988-1995 was the main period in which it was getting local coverage in WA....  SatuSuro 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By arguments presented here - Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland should be up for afd as well? I think not - but it has equally less qualifying issues re V and N - apart from sheer age and and a link to Judith Wright SatuSuro 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Satu and am also unsure why Dacium has chosen to do a limited search (eg limited to a peculiar choice of years) of a Queensland paper (or papers? which? btw) to search for a Western Australian conservation organisation. Nonetheless, to say there are "NO sources at all" is not correct.  Bambooroo is not a book (as a cursory inspection of the link would have verified), but  was a local conservation magazine published by the Great Walk and it represented an early and important contribution to the conservation movement in WA.  Its editors, btw, are still significant figures in conservation to this day.  In addition, a PhD thesis including information about the Great Walk and a magazine article focused exclusively on GWN have also been cited towards notability.  The references are given to verify material presented within the article, one Dacium mentions is listed to verify the formation of organisations in 1975 that simply no longer exist.  Of course it is correct to reference the mention of them. Please also note this stub is only an introduction: the subject is notable in terms of Western Australian history, and is most certainly verifiable.  Bambooroo, in particular, deserves an entire section on its own (and will get it, provided this article is given adequate time to get itself off the ground). Kind regards, --Greatwalk 00:12, 16 February 2007 (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.