Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are North Melbourne


 * 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. One (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We Are North Melbourne

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A short-lived supporter group who received no independent coverage from North Melbourne Football Club. The creator of the article has a potential conflict of interest. Mattinbgn\talk 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have stated three reasons for deleting this entry, so I'll respond to those in turn:

Firstly, that We Are North Melbourne is shortly lived supporter group. This is incorrect. We Are North Melbourne was incorporated as a legal entity in November 2007 and is an ongoing concern with a current website.

Secondly, that We Are North Melbourne received no independent coverage form North Melbourne. Given the purpose of the group (as its name implies) I would have thought this is fair enough. The existence of We Are North Melbourne is intrinsically linked with the North Melbourne Football Club. It played a role in an issue of historical interest and I would have thought this is of interest to Wikipedia users. Other similar groups are listed on Wikipedia, such as: The Boston United Supporters' Trust, Manchester United Supporters' Trust, Rangers Supporters Trust, Independent Manchester United Supporters Association and Screaming_Eagles_(D.C._United). It's worth pointing out that the WANM artcile cites a great many more references than any of these groups.

Thirdly, yes I am involved with WANM, so there is a conflict of interest. But I understand that who has written the material should be irrelevant, so long as Wikipedia policies are closely adhered to. In this case I have attempted to write from a neutral point of view and have cited references for anything that might be contestable. Acoording to the guidelines, "an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias." And I would welcome this kind of review.

Dave.wheaton (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * KeepI would find it helpful if you could cite specifically how the article does not meet the WP:ORG. I have read these guidelines and understand that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."  Several secondary sources are quoted in the Article, including statewide (inc. front page of The Age) and national media coverage (The Australian and Radio National, The World Today) - I believe this meets the notable criteria.   I will add more references to the Article if this will help? Dave.wheaton (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep WANM was a key to keeping the NMFC in Melbourne. It's place in the NMFC's history is significant and of interest to readers. Article is well sourced. NimChief (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The articles are about NMFC and WANM is not notable outside that context. There may be an article on the proposed move of NMFC, but that would be about the event not the supporters group. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is the basis for deletion, then I find it quite inconsistent that the other supporters groups listed above meet the WP:ORG but WANM does not. Dave.wheaton (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No one is saying that they do - just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that any of it is necessarily good or bad. Very few of the articles given as sources for this article appear to be about this organisation judging from their titles. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If I understand this issue correctly, the question to be resolved in this case is whether or not the coverage of WANM is notable?

According to the primary criteria for notability at ORG: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability."

I think the WANM article meets the notability criteria for an organisation because:

1. The depth of coverage is sometimes "substantial." For example, this article is substantially about WANM:

2. When the coverage is not substantial, neither is it trivial or incidental. For example, the column inches devoted to WANM in this article may not be substantial, but 80 words on the front page of The Age (Melbourne's only daily broadsheet newspaper) is hardly trivial or incidental. I would think that front page coverage in any capital city daily news paper would be pretty good evidence of notability. 

3. There are now 18 secondary sources cited in the article referencing WANM's media coverage. This should meet the "multiple independent sources" requirement.

4. The wide range of media outlets/articles cited provide evidence of a "strong indication of notability" from national, regional and local media.

--Dave.wheaton (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability isn't inherited from the parent organization, and this group lacks the in-depth coverage in reliable, third-party sources required by WP:N.  Them  From  Space  18:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Are you sure WP:N applies to this case? According to WP:N these guidelines apply to "topics", whereas WANM is a legal entity in it's own right.  In this case I think ORG would apply. Dave.wheaton (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic is the subject of the article. This topic is the group itself. Notability isn't inherited from a parent topic to a smaller topic, so the guidelines must apply to the organization itself.  Them  From  Space  05:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, if it is worth mentioning at all a brief mention in the North Melbourne Football Club article would be sufficent.--Grahame (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to North Melbourne Football Club which, at 77kb could do with some splitting. Maybe a separate history section where this article can be merged with the Push to the Gold Coast section.  florrie  03:55, 27 April 2009 (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.