Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mulga Bill's Bicycle


 * 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, referencing problem has been fixed and the article re-written.(non-admin closure) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mulga Bill's Bicycle
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. The PROD reasoning was basically that this might be a notable poem, but there's not really an article here, and no sources whatsoever. The user removing the PROD added some original research about the poem's possible meaning, but still no sources. My own search did not turn up any reliable sources either, and the poem is already at Wikiquote Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - yes the poem is at wikisource. It is a notable poem and worth having an article on. Not totally sure what notability guideline is strictly applicable here.  if one takes Notability (books) - the poem would meet at least criteria 1 and 5. Now the article has been started, it is very easy to find sources and to write and article in accordance with the guideline at Lyrics and poetry. I just didn't feel like rescuing it right now - but I will work on it.--Matilda talk 21:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey go for it, if you can find the sources, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Comment As the original PRODder, my reason for deletion was given as "This is not an encyclopedia article but an original source poem. The poem is already at Mulga Bill's Bicycle so trans-wiki is not needed. The poem is arguably notable enough for an encyclopaedia article if someone was prepared to take the time to find independent third party sources and then write the content. However, the article in its current format is unsuitable for Wikipedia" i.e., deletion under WP:NOT. Since an editor had taken the time to make a start on turning this article into something approaching an encyclopedia article and another editor had declared an interest on the talk page, I was prepared to wait a while before nominating at AfD. I do think it entirely possible that an article on this topic will meet WP:N; Banjo Paterson is arguably Australia's most well known poet and this poem is a key part of his works. If it is not quite as well known as Waltzing Matilda or The Man from Snowy River, it is certainly as famous as The Man from Ironbark. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What if we redirect the page to Banjo Paterson for now, close the AfD, and that way it can be re-created if and when sources are located. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am working on some sources now - I would appreciate at least about 1 hour please - thanks. For a source try http://www.sdn.ac.uk/dixneuf/April05/lloyd/pegasus.pdf - page 4 of 9 - just for starters.  Try googling.  The work is notable.  I was prepared to support a PROD as I didn't want to work on it and obviously merely the text of the poem was insufficient.  Given the article is started I see no need for deletion or redirection.   --Matilda talk 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just it, i decided to AfD this after doing a Google search. I'm not sure the souce you have cited qualifies fo Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. I'm frankly baffled by the idea that we shouldn't delete an article because someone "started it". What is AfD for then? Anyway, if you don't like the redirect idea we don't have to do it, and this debate will run the full 5 days, giving you or anyone else more than enough time to locate sources.Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the source I just cited was - how does the Society (see more at http://www.sdn.ac.uk/dixneuf/aboutdixneuf.htm) not meet WP:RS? - it is an academic refereed journal.  Furthermore, a relatively recent edition of the poem has been continuously in print since 1973 and has won two awards.  Nobody has suggested we cannot delete articles just because somebody started them.  We delete because the subject is not notable.  The article or stub is not required to provide refs until notability is questioned. More references are available and are currently being provided as the article is being developed. As it is a notable poem, a redirect is not appropriate. --Matilda talk 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep regardless of all WP:N conventions or every single Afd criteria - it is an inherent part of Australian culture has been utilised in childrens literature and has been transposed over time into the name of a musical group and is as Australian as vegemite, meat pies and edna everage - I await afds of the same - also the refs added take it well out of afd territory surely SatuSuro 00:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While I think the article should be kept and I agree with you about the appropriateness of Google as a reference source (especially for these types of articles), we can't assume that people from elsewhere can read minds. We need to make sure articles have valid references or else they will end up at AfD. The nomination was in good faith and the nominator has stated that he is more than willing to withdraw the nomination if necessary. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 00:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough, it just convinces me that there are very strong arguments for and against afd being global SatuSuro 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep: When I first looked at the article a couple of days ago, there was not much in it, and no references at all. However, since then, a group of editors, especially user:Matilda and user:SatuSuro, have put a lot of effort into improving the article, and their efforts deserve praise. The article now has lots of references to back it up. The poem is one of the most famous in Australia, and is obviously notable, as is Banjo Patterson's other work, The Man from Snowy River. Since the article has been improved, it is now a definite "keep".-- Lester  01:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I did not say at any time that the poem was not notable, just that it's notability had not been proven by citing reliable sources. That problem has clearly been fixed now. We can save the debate on ignoring all AfD criteria for another day. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2008 (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.