Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mabo Day


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mabo Day

 * – ( View AfD View log )

no indication of WP:Notability in tts own right. The majority of the article has been copied from Eddie Mabo with the exception of the unsourced first sentence. The Eddie Mabo article has had a cited reference to Mabo day added and this article was redirected to that article but the original creator has objected to that. noq (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed at the zealousness with which Noq has acted on this article, nominating it for deletion and redirecting it within 45 minutes of my creating it! I basically created it as a stub, adding some content copied from another article as a basis for further editing. Noq claimed that there was 'nothing here to indicate Mabo day exists', although a simple Google search would have revealed its significance. The Mabo decision of the Australian High Court in 1992 was hugely significant in Australian history and law, leading to the Native Title Act 1993 and the establishment of the National Native Title Tribunal. There is also a whole section of the Australian National Film and Sound Archive devoted to Mabo (see here). As for WP:Notability, this a contentious issue that has arisen often before. One person's notability is another person's trivia. I notice, for instance, that Noq (whose early editing history reveals a strong interest in sporting articles) created an article on Greg Sammons (a Leicester Tigers senior squad player) on 11 October 2008. This six-sentence article continues to exist as a stub (see the history). And yet Noq is concerned to delete an article on Mabo Day only 45 minutes after it was created! What worries me here is not so much the article as the over-zealous actions of (anonymous) self-appointed Wikipedia editors. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: please read WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks. This discussion is only about whether "Mabo Day" has sufficient independent notability for a stand-alone article. Attacks on the motives of other editors, and criticism of other articles, have no place in it. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * John, I am familiar with those articles, and my comments were more of an observation on a systemic issue in Wikipedia, rather than a personal attack on Noq. I apologise if they were taken as such. I have encountered the systemic issue before. What bothers me is the inconsistency in the application of Wikipedia guidelines. I wish that the same courtesy embodied in articles like WP:Assume good faith would be applied to creators of new articles, rather than nominating the article for deletion within 45 minutes of its creation! I have already made some substantial comments on the article's notability, and I will improve it in the coming days. Like most people, I have other things to do, and editing Wikipedia articles sometimes has to take second place. But that is what a wiki is all about, isn't it? Simon Kidd (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You still go on about the notability about Mabo without establishing the separate notability of Mabo Day. the article you created minus the copy from the Eddie Mabo article amounted to a statement that Mabo day existed without any sources. I nominated it for prod as such. Another editor provided a reference that the day actually existed - something you failed to do. I added the existence of Mabo day to the main Mabo article with the reference the other editor provided in his/her edit summary. As nothing else was in the Mabo day article other than that which you had copied from the Eddi Mabo article I redirected the Mabo Day article to the main article about Mabo. You then accused me of deleting the article but have done nothing to address the issues raised other than undo the redirect when told how to do it. As it stands I believe a redirect to the main article to be the correct thing at this stage - if more becomes available then about the Day itself and not Mabo then a separate article may be appropriate. As for my past editing history,people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. noq (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep My initial feeling was that there wasn't enough support from the article sources for the statement that, on June 3, it is a bank holiday in the Torres Strait Islands, but I see that from other sources as well as a campaign to make this a holiday recognized elsewhere.  Unlike a lot of the " Day" articles that get submitted, observance as an actual legal holiday would qualify it as notable.   Mandsford 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Every indication of notability; try searching Google News Archives. The merge/split decision is a legitimate issue, but not an issue for AfD. Melchoir (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mandsford and Melchoir Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above, all indications that this is a day observed as a public holiday in a recognised region in Australia. I believe this should make it notable. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources in the google news archive search which clearly indicate significant coverage in reliable sources, which in turn show the subject is notable. Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Because This guy Noq has a hobby of deleting articles LOL, And sources in the google news archive search which clearly indicate significant coverage in reliable sources . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majedinho (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 March 2011 (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.