Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugs Galore


 * 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 of the debate was Delete, without prejudice to the creation at any time of a neutral article about the company. I appreciate that whatever decision I reached this would likely end up on DRV, so I will explain my findings and how I reached this decision. First of all, I excluded alleged sockpuppets and weighted down one opinion for the reasons stated. I then checked the contribs of names I didn't recognise (which revealed no new cause for concern). I then looked at the numbers; deletion is the favoured outcome numerically but not by a landslide. Finally, I used my discretion in evaluating the arguments and who made them. AFD regulars favour deletion, whereas Australian contributors have argued that this is a reasonably notable company. My decision ultimately is that both sides have a case; the article shouldn't be allowed to stand as a POV fork, but that the company in question is not undeserving of an article. My summation of the debate is, therefore, that the article is not acceptable as it stands but an article on this company could be acceptable; the result of the debate is therefore delete without prejudice to a clean start. WP:NOT a soapbox is most relevant here. kingboyk 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Rugs Galore

 * Delete - Non notable company liquidation. Only reason for creation is User:2006BC and User:DarrenRay were unsuccessful in incorporating POV edits about McVeigh in Dean McVeigh (currently protected redirect) and Melbourne University student organisations. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the article contains only a couple of sentences about Rugs Galore while the rest is about controversy re liquidation proceedings, McVeigh's involvement and a big photo of McVeigh. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A read of the blog of 2006BC, who created this article, makes it very clear that there is strong agenda and animosity towards McVeigh. Thanks heavens that vitriol hasn't found its way onto WP. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya know, an actual nomination would've been nice here, rather than just leaping into the whole "making a vote" thing. You know that bit where many experienced AfDers generally refrain from doing the bolded "delete", and explain in detail why they've nominated someone's hard work for deletion?  Yeah, I know it's not as common as it should be, or once was.  But it's a nice dream ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of hard work as this is a rehash of what was in the Dean McVeigh article plus a large verbatim legal extract. I reiterate, the company is non notable, the liquidation is of mild interest due to the removal of McVeigh but there should be no confusion that this is simply an attempt to circumvent the toning down of the McVeigh POV in other articles by editors with a vested interest. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could the above nomination please refer to provisions of WP:DEL. Upon closely reading this policy, this nomination appears likely not to even raise issues that could make the article capable of being deleted. Please respond or withdraw the afd which will otherwise be seen as disruption. DarrenRay 02:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Garglebutt has just made a comment so I'd love to see him actually explain why this article should be deleted other than by making a personal attack on me. Thanks. --2006BC 08:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think WP:NOT covers most of the basis for AFD, other than questioning notability in general, pretty well. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 *  Keep  - A big case about the conduct of Administrators in making deeds of company arrangement. I'm not a lawyer but this case is well known. Please don't let politics interfere with the making of the encyclopedia. AChan 23:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I'm disregarding this contribution since the user is blocked indefinitely per User:DarrenRay/Sockpuppets. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Re last point, indeed. Hence the AFD. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. This company may well meet WP:CORP given the statement by the Victorian Minister about practices and that there are other references to them. However, in its current form, I think that it exists mainly as a way of putting up negative information about Dean McVeigh the liquidator of the Melbourne University Student Union. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC) . Capitalistroadster 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My tip is to read the cases involved, not something I have done yet in full. Understand them first before saying whether not notable. Watching Garglebutt's other edits, I see he is very vengeful person against Darren Ray. His views should be discounted for this personal view. I think everyone should grow up. AChan 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep  This is clearly an abuse of the article for deletion process and a very unfortunate act by its proposer. Notable company, notable liquidation, notable litigation about the liquidation. I would like to see those proposing its deletion actually state otherwise and participate in the discussion. These are reported cases from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal etc. They are important cases which were the subject of several media reports as well at the time aside from being published in relevant law reports which clearly demonstrate their notability in legal terms. There are very, very few cases of a company administrator ever being removed, as anyone familiar with the area of insolvency law will tell you, the threshold is so high that it is nearly impossible to cross. If you have issues with the content, change it but don't abuse this Afd process to pursue some sort of sad vendetta. I suggest the proposer read WP:POINT. DarrenRay 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm disregarding this contribution since the user is blocked indefinitely - as an alleged sockmaster/POV warrior; see User:DarrenRay/Sockpuppets and RFA. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Achan. On the face of it, the company seems reasonably notable (but I haven't looked into the issues).  However, the use of this article to continue a vendetta against Dean McVeigh is exceedingly inappropriate and troubling, not to mention immature, as is Garglebutt's apparent crusade against Darren and Ben.  Yes, student pollies make my teeth itch too, but, c'mon. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Considered as a 'comment' rather than a strong opinion. No argument made here as to why the article should be kept (and "haven't looked into it") but some very welcome "stay calm" advice. As my Aussie friends would say, "it's all good". --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the suggestion I am on a crusade. I have deliberately avoided the articles subject to POV warring to remove myself from such accusations, however I'm not going to allow this to carry over into new articles that have little merit in their own right. There are far more notable companies that are not adequately represent on WP. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ambi 02:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Being used by User:2006BC and User:DarrenRay as a soapbox for something that has little relevance to Rugs Galore, but is just moving attacks from one removed page to another. Xtra 02:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the article, although I did read it carefully before expressing a view here. DarrenRay 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An afd is not meant to be a dispute about content. This is a bogus deletion proposal that bears no relationship with WP:DEL. DarrenRay 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: How is the information not relevant to Rugs Galore. It looks all about Rugs Galore. I don't get it. AChan 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 *  Ke ep, apparently notable; AfD is not appropriate venue to address content disputes. Monicasdude 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm giving less weight to this because I've never seen the editor in question vote to delete anything. Secondly, the article on Dean McVeigh was redirected by AFD consensus; if this article is an attempt to recreate McVeigh material by the backdoor it most certainly is an issue for AFD. Finally, "apparently notable" doesn't give me much confidence that the editor actually checked. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Barely worthwhile, and only if it could be kept to a article on the title, but bad-faith editors wanting to make it 95% about McVeigh means its gotta go. -- Ian &equiv; talk 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Sorry I missed all the fun. But on a serious note, I would just like to say I thought this article would actually help resolve the issue about the missing information from Dean McVeigh's article after it was merged with Melbourne University student organisations. It wasn't appropriate to leave the information about Rugs Galore in there and I thought this was an ideal solution. If the article incorrectly states what happens in the Supreme Court cases, and I don't believe it does, why don't we have that discussion. Separating Dean McVeigh who was its Administrator and was central to what went wrong in its Administration does seem rather a strange objective. Anyway, see you at the Talk page and let's resolve it amicably. --2006BC 07:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I'm disregarding this contribution since the user is blocked indefinitely per User:DarrenRay/Sockpuppets. --kingboyk 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ditto what Mark said. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and Keep - Well known Australian company, lots of reporting in the media. - Synapse 12:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. ditto. JSIN 12:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, with supervision. Rugs Galore is certainly notable enough to warrant an article. That article should not, obviously, be used as a vehicle for thinly-disguised attacks on Dean McVeigh. At the time I write this, the article has been reduced to a stub, but still with more information about the liquidation than the actual company. So, some neutral observers would do well just to keep an eye on it. Stevage 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless all reference to McVeigh is removed. This smear campaign has gone on too long on Wikipedia. Harr o 5 10:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and per Ianbrown above. — Mar. 20, '06 [00:46] 
 * Comment. Why all reference to McVeigh removed? He was the administrator. Crazy not to mention him when central to it. AChan 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the article as it was nominated is just a hate piece against McVeigh. Until you lot can trust yourselves to be neutral and not abuse Wikipedia's openness to attack a RL enemy, you're better off not mentioning him at all. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this is terrible and is nearly an A6 attack page. Just another star in the night T 21:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because it's a not an article about "Rugs Galore" it's a backdoor article about (the increasingly legendary on Wikipedia) Dean McVeigh. --kingboyk 08:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the responses here are suspected sockpuppets per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DarrenRay_and_2006BC. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2006 (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.