Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Users of 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Linux Users of Victoria

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A WP:BEFORE check found nothing to indicate this organization meets the notability guideline i.e. I did not find any reliable sources discussing the topic in depth, much less multiple. Izno (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hm. This is local to me, so I have a reasonable eye for sources. This is pretty short and can be construed as routine, but it's entirely about it, from one of our national newspapers of record, and, importantly, not local -- the Sydney Morning Herald covering a group local to Melbourne caught my attention. This, this, and this represent them as important to the national FOSS community. This calls them "Australia's best known and most active open source community" (translated). Vaticidalprophet 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving confidently to keep after running newspapers.com and finding this ("LUV conquers all") and this ("A Linux rebel without a clue") in addition to the FUTON sourcing. Vaticidalprophet 17:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient sources. --Bduke (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing in the article shows why it is notable. Having almost 1500 members does not make it notable, quite the reverse. Lots of organisations have more than 1500 members and are not notable.--Grahame (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the sources noted above (which really ought to be incorporated into the article). jp×g 07:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I still can't see any evidence in the sources quoted that it is a notable organisation. Nobody seems to be addressing notability.--Grahame (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, I've expanded it based on the sources above. Vaticidalprophet could you please add text for sources [6] and [7] sources from newspapers.com as I don't seem to have access? Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , you can get access through the Wikipedia Library for free. If that doesn't work, I'll see what I can do, but I've been busy elsewhere lately. Vaticidalprophet</b> 00:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete this clearly fails WP:NORG - having reviewed the available sources, they're very much local coverage failing WP:AUD, with one of them being in the first person and likely not independent. The one that's technically not local is a very routine news announcement from the Sydney Morning Herald. I have no idea why we're calling these sources sufficient. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2021 (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.