Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Action (Australia)


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

National Action (Australia)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has only one reference (a dead link) and makes many claims about the subject that are unsupported - one statement even claims that an individual involved with the political party was accused of murder. The person may still be living and this is totally in contradiction to Wikipedia's policy on living persons. This page lacks any reputable source (in fact, it lacks any reference at all) and should be deleted. If anyone disputes this, feel free to post your argument on this page. Minigoody101 (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 13.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  09:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let's be accurate. The article most categorically does not say someone was "accused of murder"; it says the party or some in it had "plans" to do so. An important difference, and removes any BLP issue. It is also false to say "it lacks any reference at all": there is one reference on the page, two in-line links, a cited book and indications within the text of other sources. The dead link ref complained of is not a dead link; it never was a clickable link, it is a normal citation that could be followed up in a good reference library. The article needs work, unquestionably, but that is not and never has been a criterion for deletion (or most of Wikipedia would have been deleted years ago!!!) Emeraude (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An extra ref: "Groups such as National Acton, formed in 1982, and the breakaway Australian National Movement, provide less contested examples of fascist organizations. Members of both groups have been convicted of racist violence." (Cyprian P. Blamires ed.:World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 2, p 66, ABC-CLIO 2006) Emeraude (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - okay, to begin with, unsubstantiated accusations against living people should not be included and even those formally charged with a crime should be written about neutrally and with no WP:OR or POV commentary on the accusations, charges, etc. But the fact that there might be BLP violations or WP:NPOV issues is not a justification for deletion. The party/group must be notable to be included and notability requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources. So, with that in mind, I would highlight the following for consideration:


 * 1. Holocaust Denial As an International Movement by Stephen E. Atkins (ABC-CLIO, 2009) - mentions the group, though in one instance it incorrectly refers to it as National Alliance.


 * 2. National Action is racist, court rules by Jessica Rose (Green Left Weekly, 27 January 1999) - focussed on the subject.


 * 3. American Jewish Year Book, 2002 by David Singer & Lawrence Grossman (VNR AG, 2003) - makes specific mention of the group.


 * 4. Australia’s pathetic judicial defence of free speech (Crikey, 18 November 2011) - substantial coverage of a defamation case involving the group and its leader.


 * 5. Backing Hanson: National Action by Sean Lennon (Green Left Weekly, 14 May 1997) - all about the group, its formation, leaders, etc.


 * 6. Australia Neo-nazis Barrage Meeting with Slurs, Threats by Jeremy Jones (JTA Jewish News Archive, 2 March 1995)


 * It's worth pointing out, I think, that the Council of Australian Governments has what they call National Action Plans so Googling "National Action" and "Australia" brings up a stack of useless sources that are not related to the subject. I tried "National Action" and some of the associated names instead to come up with the above. Current problems with the article are mostly WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problems, not reason to delete sort of problems, in my opinion. I think the above sources provide more than enough "significant coverage" for the group to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart 111  01:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, largely in line with Stalwart111. The article certainly needs a rewrite, but this is one of the more well-known Australian ultra-right groups and this area is actually rather under-represented on Wikipedia at the moment. As an aside, there was an official NA candidate at the 1984 Hughes by-election (Saleam), and running officially endorsed candidates at federal elections has generally been considered justification for an article. There are borderline cases, but this isn't one of them. Frickeg (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As others have noted, one of the more notable Australian far-right groups of the last few decades. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to note that the dead link I pointed out is a dead link, I have not confused it with the two in-line links or the bibliography, which leaves the page with only the two reference links and not much else supporting it. Also, the article might not 'categorically' accuse someone of murder, but it certainly casts unfounded aspersions, e.g.:
 * "[Some reasons to account for the party's decline include] ...its plans to fire-bomb a political rival's home and to murder anti-Apartheid activist Eddie Funde." - No citation.
 * I don't think its fair that such a comment be made without any verification. (Preceding unsigned comments by Minigoody101 (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC))


 * It's not a dead link, because it does not purport to link to the news article online. But that's not relevant to this discussion anyway, since references do not have to be available online. The reference is clearly given as "Herald Sun, 94-04-02", and that is enough for any competent person to go to a library and dig it out. Emeraude (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, one questionable statement (or even more) is not grounds for deletion. If it's not supported in any of the given sources, delete the statement, but there's no reason to delete the article, for which plenty of sources (both on and offline) have been provided. Frickeg (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with those above, though I think it is worth acknowledging that you've put forward a very solid case for a re-write. They just aren't really reasons for deletion. Stalwart 111  22:04, 18 December 2012 (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.