Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Young Farmers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) BusterD (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand Young Farmers[edit]
- New Zealand Young Farmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not WP:NOTABLE organization Geek2003 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. This interview says that the Young Farmer Contest or "Young Farmer of the Year" contest airs on New Zealand TV. Looking at sources about winners of the competition, I saw that the winner is a big deal in New Zealand. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not as strong as it once was, but still an important club/competition in New Zealand. Finals are aired on television, major prizes awarded and just competing is a great thing to have on your CV. Mores sources if needed [8] [9] [10] [11]. AIRcorn (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Easily passes notability requirements at WP:ORG - finals of its annual contest are shown annually on TVNZ (which in itself constitutes significant coverage in secondary sources, i.e., the primary criterion). Even the regional finals are now screened digitally by TVNZ (see [12]). Grutness...wha? 01:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Deletechallenged content must be attributed to reliable 3rd party published sources, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.Geek2003 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above sources are all third party and all attribute to the topics notability. AIRcorn (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominators cannot cast a !vote. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The sources sited are not inline citations within the article, and I was not able to find them. I tagged the page earlier this month to identify the page did not have any 3rd party citations before I requested to have it deleted.Geek2003 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you try looking for some? That would have been a far more sensible thing to do than rush straight to AfD... Grutness...wha? 05:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged the page first. Put the inline citations in the page and I will change my vote.Geek2003 (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD's are not used as a forum to improve articles. A quick google search is enough to establish the fact that sources exists and there is a degree of notability. It is churlish to change you vote only once the changes that you have requested are made. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, let's get this straight, Geek2003 - you tagged the page for deletion as non-notable, rather than checking whether it was notable? Hardly an appropriate thing to do... in future, if you think that there are problems with an article which may make it worthy of deletion, check. This is standard practice, as explained at WP:BEFORE, section B2. That there are easy to find sources is clear by the simple fact that a dozen have been pointed out in this deletion discussion. Section C3 is also relevant - adding a clean-up tag is a more appropriate thing to do than a direct nomination for deletion. Yes, you did add a clean-up tag, but it was there for less than 48 hours before this nomination - hardly an appropriate length of time. The whole of section D is also relevant, and it is clear that you completely skipped this part of the process (even a cursory glance at google books and google news throws up plenty of secondary sources relating to NZYF). To press ahead with an AfD when it is clear that a combination of cleanup tags and addition of easily found sources is more appropriate is simply wasting everyone's time. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- James, I agree that this is a complete waste of time. We are all volunteers here and we have limited time and there is a HUGE backload of work that needs doing but here we are fighting what appears to be a personal vendetta (or maybe an editor that does not realise how WP works). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, let's get this straight, Geek2003 - you tagged the page for deletion as non-notable, rather than checking whether it was notable? Hardly an appropriate thing to do... in future, if you think that there are problems with an article which may make it worthy of deletion, check. This is standard practice, as explained at WP:BEFORE, section B2. That there are easy to find sources is clear by the simple fact that a dozen have been pointed out in this deletion discussion. Section C3 is also relevant - adding a clean-up tag is a more appropriate thing to do than a direct nomination for deletion. Yes, you did add a clean-up tag, but it was there for less than 48 hours before this nomination - hardly an appropriate length of time. The whole of section D is also relevant, and it is clear that you completely skipped this part of the process (even a cursory glance at google books and google news throws up plenty of secondary sources relating to NZYF). To press ahead with an AfD when it is clear that a combination of cleanup tags and addition of easily found sources is more appropriate is simply wasting everyone's time. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD's are not used as a forum to improve articles. A quick google search is enough to establish the fact that sources exists and there is a degree of notability. It is churlish to change you vote only once the changes that you have requested are made. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged the page first. Put the inline citations in the page and I will change my vote.Geek2003 (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Geek2003, please tell me this is not a vendetta due to my mass deletion requests for the Avaya product articles. I am having trouble assuming good faith here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not. But since you bring up good faith could you please in the future tag the pages first?Geek2003 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You want me to give myself a hard time in the cyber world. Hey, it is bad enough in the real world!! Please rememeber that we are volunteers here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not. But since you bring up good faith could you please in the future tag the pages first?Geek2003 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you try looking for some? That would have been a far more sensible thing to do than rush straight to AfD... Grutness...wha? 05:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The sources sited are not inline citations within the article, and I was not able to find them. I tagged the page earlier this month to identify the page did not have any 3rd party citations before I requested to have it deleted.Geek2003 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficiently notable per WP:ORG and surely that trumps WP:NOTABLE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although not a great fan of Young Farmers Clubs, this looks pretty notable to me and meets the criteria for notability. Velella Velella Talk 07:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am ambivalent about YFC but I try not to let my own opinion get in the way of WP editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- /*Startled splutter*/ Keep! - AfD is not the place to force stub expansion. The article is patently "in progress" and it covers a national organisation of significance. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The fact that the group was established in 1927 and that New Zealand is an agricultural country should have been tippers that this is a poor nomination. The sources showing do suck, admittedly. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2011 (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.