Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeless Friendly Precincts

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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Friendly Precincts[edit]

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

This appears to be an outgrowth of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Georgatos which also has issues. Information on this page should be merged in to the "Homeless" section of the main article rather than having its own page. JamesG5 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article in its own right with substantial references and if an outgrowth then out of the Matagarup Refugee Camp. It is a significant public value story for the homeless and a campaign that involves multiple parties and has secured commitments. I believe it should have a page of its own so it grows in its own right. This campaign has many involved and should not be deleted. Georgatos is only the person who established the campaign and it should not be limited to him but also involves Kaeshagen, Clarke, the homeless sector and commitments from Councils and others. Keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattersthestruggle (talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gerry Georgatos. Doesn't seem to have much significance beyond the already marginally-notable Georgatos. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't quite see enough that would be relevant to Georgatos to justify a merge, although a sentence here or there could manage it. Little question of passing notability in its own right. Frickeg (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the promotor's page. It;s already mentioned there, and there is not enough worth merging. . No separate notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has plenty of references and I think it is notable. Biscuittin (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:54, 28 November 2015 (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.