Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosciuszko Huts Association


 * 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 keep. Notability appears to be borderline, but on the balance there is consensus to keep. Some substantive sourcing has been provided, and the one argument challenging the strongest source is off the mark. No clear consensus on renaming, but the argument to reframe as an article about the huts themselves is strong, and I note that at least one of the sources appear to discuss the huts more than the association. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Kosciuszko Huts Association

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I don't think this specific volunteer group is too notable. The only significant mention I could find is this page on nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Australia. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails WP:ORG . LibStar (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is a bit of a ridiculous nomination by a user ignorant of Australia which has clear alternatives to deletion. The Kosciuszko Huts have been around for a century or so and have significant associations with 20th Century Australian history (even though the volunteer association in its current form may have only been set up in 1971). Its papers are kept in the National Library of Australia. The sources describing the huts association is likely to be in book form rather than internet searches, so .I propose that we Keep the article, or if not then the best alternative is a Redirect to Kosciuszko National Park where there is already a mention of the huts and their maintenance. This will assist with any further sources that can be found. Deus et lex (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good morning, I am sorry I am not knowledgeable of every country on Earth. I guess I'll withdraw my nomination and set up the redirect. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be knowledgeable, but I'd respectfully suggest that a bit of searching beyond the Google search that was done would have easily shown the historic links to these huts. I'm sorry if my comment above implied bad faith (it wasn't intended), but I sometimes just get frustrated that not a lot of searching gets done before deletion is proposed. Deus et lex (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I fully agree with Deus et lex. --Bduke (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. Setting up a redirect to Kosciuszko National Park instead. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wanted to let you know that I've reverted the withdrawl, per WP:WDAFD, given that your deletion nomination has gained deletion support from at least one other person. EggRoll97 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I didn't know too much about withdrawing policy, since I only learned of it very recently. I apologize for my premature withdrawal. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Also want to chime in here. Fails WP:ORG clearly, and the sourcing is non-reliable. EggRoll97 (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Clearly notable. I have added the three following sources to the article, all of which show substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources:
 * 1. The organisation's archives are in the Australian National Library
 * 2. Australian Geographic published a full-length feature article about the organisation in June 2022.
 * 3. There are many newspaper articles about the association, although many are from pre-web days they can be found by search the Australian National Library newspaper search. I added one from 1991 to the article.
 * The article clearly needs improvement, but it's notable and should not be deleted. Lijil (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting in light of recent improvements to the article. Also consider the ATD of a redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have updated my !vote to keep in the first place (with redirect an alternative). Deus et lex (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY; Lijil; Deus et lex. I have significantly expanded the page with numerous RSs. Clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Does this mean people like me who voted already should repeat our vote? I still think this is a clear keep, especially after extensive rewriting of the article with a lot more references. Lijil (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you shouldn't repeat your !vote, unless you want to change your recommendation. In which case you should strike through your earlier !vote. SpinningSpark 21:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - In response to the previous closer's comment, I'll note that my proposal to redirect was only a secondary !vote; I am strongly in favour of keeping the article, particularly in line with the edits since the AfD was listed. I think consensus has been reached on that too. Deus et lex (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources highlighted by Lijil. The records in the Australian National Archive don't really count for notability (those are primary sources with no analysis of their significance) but newspaper articles and Australian Geographic are enough to meet GNG. SpinningSpark 21:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above or Delete. There are insufficient references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. We require references that provide in-depth information, including "Independent Content", on the subject, the association. The decent references all are based on interviews with people associated with the organization (fails WP:ORGIND) or are mentions-in-passing because of the recent fires.  HighKing++ 14:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - the claim that interviews are not reliable sources is a myth. Australian Geographic is a highly reputable source and to claim it is in the realm of paid advertising is simply false. Enough has been added to keep the page. Deus et lex (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Response Anyone claiming that articles that rely entirely on interviews *for the purposes of establishing notability* of a *company* clearly is unfamiliar with WP:ORGIND which states that references must include "Independent Content", that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . So yeah, maybe sometimes things that people say are myths actually turn out to be based on fact? You show me a reference that meets NCORP and include "Independent Content" and I'll WP:HEY my !vote - otherwise perhaps you should take another look at NCORP criteria.  HighKing</b>++ 12:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Independence refers to the creation of the source - the fact that you interview someone doesn't mean a source isn't independent. Secondary sources have to be derived from primary sources originally otherwise they would never exist. Asking someone what happened is a valid way of reporting something as long as it is accurate and not biased. The question is whether it's independent enough from the subject. The Australian Geographic article is a highly reputable source and linking it to something along the lines of paid advertising is nonsense. The article has been improved to meet the relevant criteria for Wikipedia. Deus et lex (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep afds are fun by the look of this one, I believe the organization and the huts exist, and the  article is sufficient for its purpose away from afd rigmarole...  JarrahTree 14:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. In my opinion, it would be better to have an article on Kosciuszko huts rather than the organisation trying to preserve them. The org can be included in that article with a redirect from this title.  It's the huts that have the notability and this arrangement avoids the stringent requirements we now have for org articles.  But that is something for future consideration; it does not change my keep !vote. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Kosciuszko huts. Thanks to Spinningspark for the suggestion. Sources have established that the huts themselves are notable, and the association can be covered within an article about the huts. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.