Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnit Club


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Winnit Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A support clib for users of a single tourist island  DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete almost all sources provided are primary. even trove has routine coverage like donations made. totally non notable outside of Rottnest Island. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep in light of sourcing from independent sources. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Article came through AfC.  Nominator has not cited a policy, guideline, or essay opposed to clibs or clubs on Wikipedia.  I found on Trove a 1954 WP:RS newspaper column that identifies the club as "well-known", and notability is not temporary.  I also found using Trove that the 2.3 million citizens of Western Australia have been using their tax dollars to support the work of this club.  I've added four references I found on Trove to the "Further reading" section of the article.  I also added Category:Rottnest Island, in which this article is a good addition.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * " 2.3 million citizens of Western Australia have been using their tax dollars to support the work of this club" is not a criterion for notability. does not mean 2.3 million reasons to support notability. taxpayers dollars are used for 1000s of items a year. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As per the nutshell of WP:N, "notable topics" are "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." Unscintillating (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * that's a vague response to my point. You have provided other good reasons for keep but I think your point on 2.3 million is irrelevant. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have quoted from WP:N, which says that notable topics are those that have attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time. Your claim is that the attention this topic has attracted does not extend beyond the 300 permanent residents of Rottnest Island.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So someone in Karratha really is interested in rottnest island? LibStar (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well beyond Karratha http://www.abc.net.au/news/search/?query=rottnest&x=0&y=0 WP:AGF prevents any further comment re Libstars behaviour in Afds for the last 5 years plus but this interaction is really unnecessary for this Afd. satusuro 00:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * that search doesn't establish that 2.3 million Western Australans are interested in Rottnest Island. same thing that the Rudd Government Nation building program used taxpayers money to upgrade every school in Australia, that does not mean a taxpayer in Karratha personally cared about an individual school upgrade in Perth. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2.3 million is an over reach as thats total population, Gnangarra 03:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual statement was, "I also found using Trove that the 2.3 million citizens of Western Australia have been using their tax dollars to support the work of this club." I have posted two references in the article to support this statement.  Are you saying that a verifiable statement is an overreach?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * do children and pensioners pay tax in Western Australia? LibStar (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So do you admit that the 2.3 million is an exaggeration of actual taxpayers in Western Australia? LibStar (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have examined your request and I'm not finding it to have merit. The original post makes no reference to "taxpayers".  The reference to tax is "their tax dollars", where the antecedent to "their" is the "citizens of Western Australia".  As per the article, there are 2.3 million citizens of Western Australia.  The request comes across to me as having the form of a strawman, where a strawman is an informal logical fallacy "premised on a distortion of the other party's position".  In this type of situation the "...reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position."  Unscintillating (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also examined the timing of the post that made this request.
 * *2014-02-18T07:57:24
 * *2014-02-18T07:59:32 the edit to which I am responding
 * *2014-02-18T07:59:57
 * It shows that I have responded to an edit that took perhaps 2 minutes and 8 seconds to prepare and post. Unscintillating (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep created by new user through the WP:AFC processes one doesnt need to WP:AGF on notability its already jump through those hoops. If one happened to miss the reference section it was the primary subject of a book in 1971, its apparently been the source and driving force behind significant projects, many notable in their right on the Island. Gnangarra 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - (not a clib for a start) notable process occurring on a notable island that has a lot more to it than 'single tourist island' - the island and component contributing factors of its history and environment are not even adequately covered at this stage. satusuro 02:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * should you not assume good faith and note it was a typo by DGG? LibStar (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good faith is not the issue with DGG. Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - nominator has not identified a valid reason for deleting. A support group for a tourist island is not presumed to be lacking in notability. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2014 (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.