Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endeavour Programme

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) Mkdw ^talk 00:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endeavour Programme[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #1 and #2 no argument for deletion and deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. The reason for nomination is that I have not been able to establish notability and neither has anyone else over the last 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stale notability tags do not explain 350 consecutive "delete" !votes in three days. Editors on your talk page have explained that your AfD selections have been indiscriminate. In response to the previous comment, how do you know that no one has established notability over the past five years? (You don't know.) Regarding the procedure that you used to determine that there was a problem with notability, how can other editors reproduce your results if you don't explain how you arrived at the conclusion? What are the alternatives to deletion for a non-notable topic sourced with reliable primary sources? This article is an example of an article for which even if non-notability is established, there is reliable material and it is unlikely that there is a theoretical case for deletion. Your AfDs have succeeded in attracting editors to some of the discussions. These editors nullify my speedy keep !votes far more than your reply. On the other hand, if more editors request a procedural close, such AfDs should be closed promptly. Speedy keeps are generally closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination, and one of the purposes of such a closure is to allow the nominator a chance to properly prepare or improve the deletion argument. Leaving such AfDs open for any longer than necessary poses a risk that subsequent editors will invest time in a substandard discussion that could already have been closed for improvement. Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realise I made a mistake in giving my nomination here, and implied that I was nominating it simply because it has been tagged for notability for 5 years, which was not what I meant. It is unreferenced (except link to its own website). Google search turned up several results, but most were not for this particular programme but for other programmes called Endeavour, and the only one I found about this was its own page, which is worded extremely closely to this article. Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep [1], [2], [3], [4] probably get this into the range of WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this programme actually is called Endeavour Awards which explains, at least in part, the difficulty in finding sources. This seems to be an important programme and the available sources, when added, would be sufficient to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move to Endeavour Awards). Notability, without even looking hard: Indian newspaper, Jakarta Post, Australian Prime Minister, Canadian Embassy, Laos Embassy, International NGO funding alert website, 'Study in Australia' portal for international students, Melbourne University (also just about every other Australian university). Sportygeek (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.