Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia

Add links
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 no consensus. Default is therefore keep; due to the poor structure at the debate there is liberty to relist in a month or two if there is no improvement. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia[edit]

Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. there is nothing in gnews. and gbooks only has 3 hits [1] 1 of which merely confirms this is an arts organisation. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 0[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Can User:LibStar please point me to the actual Wiki guidelines that state that a subject is not 'notable' because there are no, or only a few, 'hits' about it on Google? Is finding 'hits' on Google the only criteria for 'notability'? The article lists independent, secondary sources, published by reputable organizations,and the publications have ISBN numbers — so are easily 'verifiable' by someone who is diligent. In other words, can you provide evidence for you categoric claim that the article "fails WP:ORG". Also, why didn't you bother to notify me of your deletion tag? It is generally considered (WP:AFD) courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. --Pkravchenko (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:GNG, multiple sources in third party coverage is required. google news is a good way of finding these. the article lacks inline citations so it is difficult to verify if the supplied sources actually relate to the subject indepth. See Wikipedia:Inline citation. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I require more information on cited sources, at the minimum there should be inline citations and page references. gnews covers most major newspapers from 1900 so this organisation should pick up some online coverage even passing mentions.. These are my grounds for deletion. have you found any sources? LibStar (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:OFFLINE "Special care should be taken when using offline sources. Make sure to provide full bibliographic information". I would expect page numbers as a minimum. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this organisation was not active in 1860 (when online sources would be difficult to find) but even as late as 2008 it was active when the internet was well established, there is also reference to organisation activity post 1990 and in the 2000s surely this would be covered or even touched somewhere online? LibStar (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cite WP:PROVEIT and would question every statement in the article in the absence of inline citations even page numbers of offline sources. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • SpeedyKeep I think that the post at 06:09 1 February 2011 (UTC) by the nominator should be considered as withdrawing the nomination in lieu of WP:PROVEIT.  Also, I suggest that the nominator review Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. "...invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion."  To editors that want to keep this article, I'm also noting WP:NONENG by which I'd suggest that they add some translations into English of citations. Unscintillating (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to find sources, this is an organisation has that existed in Australia for 43 years (therefore should get some English language coverage) and has been active as late as 2008. I am an experienced editor and don't see how this is notable. where is the coverage? have you attempted to find any sources? LibStar (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs exist to dispute and discuss notability of the subject. I have applied the {{notability}} template in the past on over 100 articles and only in 2 cases has someone ever bothered to improve the article. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, LibStar, if you yourself aren't willing to fix the article before tagging it (or sending it to AfD), you shouldn't be criticising others for not doing so.  -- Lear's Fool 07:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found evidence of notability hence the nomination, simple. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment can the 2 keep voters please indicate how the sources refer to the article text to establish notability. neither has attempted to find other sources to establish notability. This nomination does not qualify for speedy keep in the absence of a lack of verification of inline text or other sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • further searches for sources I have searched 2 three major Australian news websites and found nothing. [2] and [3]. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and this. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The article is referenced to 5 reliable, independant sources, and we assume that the content in the article (at least the bulk of it) is sourced by these. This would certainly constitute significant coverage. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate why we shouldn't trust the author's use of these sources, and you have failed to do so. As for searching for sources, this is obviously going to be complicated by foreign language issues, but a simple Trove search returns five sources, some of which are cited here.  -- Lear's Fool 07:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the 5 sources don't look like indepth coverage to me but merely confirm the organisation's existence. just because it exists doesn't mean it's notable. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as per WP:BURDEN it's incumbent on those wanting to keep any statement/article. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is an organisation has that existed in Australia for 43 years (therefore should get some English language coverage) and has been active as late as 2008. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) See WP:SOURCE, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources."  I.e., you go to the library and read the book.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that is unreasonable to expect everyone in WP to simply go to a bookshop. to me this is simply a very small specialised organisation that has lacked any coverage in any Australian news outlet and gets 5 mentions in some books despite being active for 43 years. surely in this time it would garner some mention in the Australian press. none whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:OFFLINE "Special care should be taken when using offline sources. Make sure to provide full bibliographic information". I would expect page numbers as a minimum. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is preferable for offline sources to be so used does not mean that a lack of inline sources or page numbers is grounds for deletion.  -- Lear's Fool 07:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment on applicable criterion as a non commercial organisation I don't see this meeting the criteria of WP:CLUB there is no widespread attention or influence of this organisation. It has held numerous exhibitions in its 43 year history but can't even get a mention in the Australian press. none whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, there are many mentions in the Australia press:
  • Individual articles in The Free Thought, a Ukrainian-language weekly newspaper issued in Sydney.
See also WP:NNC. Unscintillating (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
could you please supply me the dates and page of these individual articles. Thanks in advance. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, :: could you please supply me the dates and page of these individual articles. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Free Thought is not mainstream press but seems to serve a small market of Ukrainian expats. the quality of sources helps establish notability. you would expect an Australian based 43 year old organisation to get some coverage even a passing mention in the Australian mainstream press. It would be a reasonable expectation that Australian organisations in WP get coverage in Australian mainstream press. especially organisations that have existed for over 40 years and have been as recently active as 2008. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

  • Keep. Although User:LibStar claims he is "an experienced editor", it seems that he/she is ignorant of the real extent of media "coverage", that he/she so determinedly relies upon. You quote 'Google News' by saying: "gnews covers most major newspapers from 1900". Wrong - actually, the archive of newspapers is very limited and selective, please read this yourself, according to the Wikipedia article Google_news#Sources_for_news "The actual list of sources is not known outside of Google.". The "Trove", or National Archives of Australia online newspapers site has only made accessible newspapers up to the year 1954. Most of the comments you make relate to improving the article, which has nothing to do with your justification for 'deleting' the article. You still have not answered my question/criticism of why didn't you notify me of your Afd tag? I would not claim that I am as experienced as you, but I do think that your actions are irresponsible and dangerous. How many other articles have you caused to be deleted, without notifying the authors, in line with your beliefs? --Pkravchenko (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article creator has now changed his vote to delete. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, the above vote for 'keep' was written within the context of the original debate about online sources. I may have changed my mind later, but this was after you relisted the AfD, and after you tried to expand the original reasons to include COI, lack of inline reference etc. --Pkravchenko (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there is no compulsory rule to notify editors and it is not dangerous not to notify editor. you do not WP:OWN the article so don't take it personally, specifically Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Comments. all AfDs last for 7 days and don't automatically get deleted they need consensus to delete, you should know that as an experienced editor. you have swayed me in no way. my nomination stands for failing WP:ORG, WP:GNG. it should be deleted in my opinion. no keep vote has addressed my concern that as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. could you please address the lack of inline citations, it may address the lack of verified statements in the article. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) Nominator has now made 39 posts on this AfD page and zero posts on Talk:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia.  (2) Nominator has called WP:SOURCEACCESS policy "unreasonable".  (3) Nominator has posted, without notice here or on the article talk page, to Wikipedia:RS/N#Reliability_of_an_expat_community_newspaper.  Nominator there opines that [The Free Thought] is a volunteer organization; although, the newspaper has a circulation of 1500 and annual subscription rate of AU$100.  (4) Nominator disputes as "no compulsory rule", notification that is "generally considered courteous" under WP:AFD.  (5) Nominator chooses to ignore "community consensus" in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion since "I have applied the {{notability}} template in the past over 100 articles and only in 2 cases has someone ever bothered to improve the article."  (6) WP:BURDEN is part of content policy, not notability policy, but nominator feels that WP:BURDEN puts the burden on "those wanting to keep any...article."  I again recommend Speedykeep, that the pattern of posts by nominator should be construed as voluntary withdrawal of the nomination, policy that applies for this interpretation is WP:IAR as the Speedykeep is for the good of the encyclopedia and sends a polite message to the nominator.  This should not be left solely up to the closing administrator, I propose that other editors support a Speedykeep. Unscintillating (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nice try but my nomination still stands. Do not put words in my mouth, I did not say WP:SOURCEACCESS is unreasonable I said expecting someone to visit a bookshop for the purpose of clarifying sources in WP is unreasonable. The article creator presumably has access to these sources but no attempt has been made to improve citation during the AfD process. That is a reasonable expectation when one wants to verify statements and sources during AfD. Again unscintillating fails to address my primary concern that as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Other arts organisations in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:SOURCEACCESS policy says, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources...some print sources may be available only in university libraries" and you say, "that is unreasonable to expect everyone in WP to simply go to a bookshop", how is that anything other than calling the policy "unreasonable"?  If you don't like this policy and want to change it, then the place for your opinion is at WT:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you said " I.e., you go to the library and read the book" that is not possible for many WP editors. Again unscintillating fails to address my primary concern that as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Any other organisation in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"(1) Nominator has now made 39 posts on this AfD page and zero posts on Talk:Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia" the number of posts here or on the talk page is totally irrelevant to your case for arguing keep. this is an active AfD so if anything it is best comments are here. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lear's Fool has told you, "while inline citations are desirable, a lack thereof is not even close to being grounds for deletion."
Pkravchenko has told you, "the publications have ISBN numbers — so are easily 'verifiable' by someone who is diligent."
I started that article in response to your request for help with locating the newspaper articles in The Free Thought.  You now have easy access to a list of libraries with The Free Thought using the OCLC number; the phone number of the newspaper in the banner; and their email address, also in the banner.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure of User:LibStar's point. I have, with a positive intention, tried to improve an article whose quality of content was not part of this discussion, and especially after User:LibStar sneakily tried to get support from other editors by posting a question elsewhere, and also after he placed tags on that article as well — seemingly with the motive to discredit that newspaper's "reliability". The article is now archived, so there is no opportunity of posting a response. I'm not sure of the WP guideline on this, but to me this is sneaky, especially as he did not disclose his motivation for posting the question. In User:LibStar's question he falsely stated that the The Free Though is a 'volunteer' newspaper -- wrong, it is a fully commercial newspaper -- see here. He denounces others for not having credible sources, yet uses ill-considered opinions and false evidence as 'facts' to elicit support. At this posting he irresponsibly and slanderously formed the tone of his question by suggesting that both the newspaper and the article were "unreliable", by using emotive, or at least suggestive terms, like "volunteers", "small Ukrainian expat community", "amateur nature", and then stated there are no mainstream press references, thereby implying 'unreliability'. It is OK to say that no independent referenced source for assessing the 'reliability' of the newspaper exist, but I do think it is irresponsible and faulty logic to imply "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", and that the only 'reliable' way of assessing 'reliability' is to have hits via "mainstream media".
To answer User:LibStar's apparent criticism — the majority of my work on WP is based on improving articles, and occasionally writing new articles. I do not try to delete other people's works, leaving this work to people, hopefully, who are rational, objective, and have no agenda (and hopefully, who as a starting point, apply etiquette and WP guidelines fairly and not according to their own interpretations). I must say, that as someone who has so far enjoyed contributing to WP, that your views seem extremist and not friendly — certainly they do not indicate that you have the motivation to contribute to WP in a positive way. All I have seen so far is sneaky attacks, and an inability to accept other user's experienced and carefully considered views. I have deliberately not modified/improved the article we are discussing, as the real issue is your allegation that the article should be deleted due to "failing WP:N". I have not done any editing to be fair to you, and to allow anyone joining this discussion to clearly see the main thrust of your justification for nomination. So far, it seems, no one else agrees with your justifications for deleting the topic. As you have taken the step of nominating it for deletion, your original stated justification should stand alone. According to your own testimony you did not nominate the article for deletion because it had to be "improved". You have already drawn the line in the sand by saying that the article should be deleted because "there is nothing in gnews. and gbooks only has 3 hits". As an afterthought, and during the ongoing discussion, you introduced additional tags which relate to the improvement of the article, things which do not give any more weight to your original justification for deletion. I do not disagree with these points for improvement, however these points do not provide any or additional justification for deletion — as has already been stated by others above. Although you accuse me of improving, and at the same time, not improving articles, you have actively tried to further discredit the article (while the discussion was still ongoing) by adding the {{unreferencedsect}} tag. I can only interpret your action as not in good faith, especially in view of your lack of positive actions to improve the article yourself, and with you also being aware that no one else so far has agreed with you, especially your point about the references. I would suggest that there is a basic incongruity in your demand for me to 'fix up' the inline references, while really your bottom line (and insistent demand) is that the article should be deleted because it doesn't have any information in the "mainstream media". --Pkravchenko (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you are so keen to keep why don't you contact the newspaper. I am currently in Kuala Lumpur please indicate which local libraries would have free thought. Pkravchenko started this article and added those references with no inline citations, yet he/she has made no effort to add citations. I am questioning the veracity of statements in the article. If they cannot be verified then notability is also shaky. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry User:LibStar — the onus is on you to prove justifiable grounds for deletion. Wherever you are, it is irrelevent -- you have taken the drastic step of nominating an article for deletion, without using alternate and more friendly approaches outlined in the WP deletions policy -- you are free to express your opinion, but do not place the burden of proof of rebutting your own opinions (which are not based on WP guidelines) on others. It is clear that you are sore about being questioned about your justifications, but you have to accept that so far there is no evidence that you have done something positive to improve the article. --Pkravchenko (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also searched 3 major Australians new sites. Please add inline citations, you obviously have access to the sources, I don't understand the reluctance. Also do you have a connection to this society are you a member? LibStar (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my grounds for deletion are: as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Any other organisation in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but robotically repeating your previous demands and allegations does not provide any new or useful justification to help your nomination. In your responses, you have ignored some substantial points mentioned earlier by myself and others questioning the logical basis of you allegation. For a start you have persistently ignored statements and WP guidelines that sole reliance on current "news websites" is a) not a criteria for claiming a basis for deletion, and b) you have not responded to the fact that you are wrong about your belief that current online media covers every 'notable' event or person. You still have not corrected your false and unsubstantiated claim that "gnews covers most major newspapers from 1900". I'm sorry for repeating this, but "actually, the archive of newspapers is very limited and selective, please read this yourself, according to the Wikipedia article Google_news#Sources_for_news. 'The actual list of sources is not known outside of Google.'. The "Trove", or National Archives of Australia online newspapers site has only made accessible newspapers up to the year 1954." Are you aware of the years and extent of coverage of the "news websites" you rely on as a the basis for deletion? Unless you are prepared to acknowledge the limitation of the basis for your rationale, then I would submit, that we are not 'speaking the same language, and that it is not feasible to answer any of your demands. As WP:N states: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". You have tried to discredit The Free Though, making false allegations, (which you still have not admitted to, or corrected), and now you are, as a last resort, "questioning the veracity of statements in the article", based on your own methodology of ignoring WP guidelines and asserting without any evidence that the provided sources are now, not only not "verifiable", but "questionable"! Wow! --Pkravchenko (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"questioning the veracity of statements in the article" is permitted under WP:BURDEN given that there are no inline citations, Pkravchenko, why the reluctance to add inline citations despite requests? also you avoided my other question, are you a member of this society or have a connection to it? LibStar (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (1) "Questioning the veracity" is good, as long as it is relevant and appropriate in this discussion concerning the one specific issue, ie. the basis for your nomination. Otherwise it sounds like you are making wild accusations, without any solid basis. I suggest that you have failed your burden of proof, which is to provide "valid arguments citing appropriate guidelines", as stated in the information box at the top of this page. So far you have have failed to cite appropriate guidelines which say that lack of online media 'hits' automatically equals 'lack of reliability'. In fact, there are a number of WP guidelines which clearly state the opposite (See for eg. WP:GHITS). You have have failed to cite appropriate guidelines which say that a lack of inline citations is a basis for deletion. You have persisted in re-interpreting WP guidelines in an 'original' way, and have tried to use the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" trick to improperly draw conclusions.
(2) Please see detailed responses to the same question regarding inline citations above.
(3) Regarding the third part of your demand — why do you need to know?, and how do you intend to use this personal information in the context of your reasons for nomination? I would suggest that as a starting basis for trust, there needs to be a certain history of behavior based on respect for other peoples' opinion and an agreed standard of etiquette, which in our case is available to us in the form of WP guidelines. Sorry, but you have not demonstrated anything that would lead me to divulge any personal information to you. You have ignored specific comments by others pointing out WP guidelines opposite to what your are arguing. You unashamedly deny that WP etiquette regarding notifying authors of articles is important, and have not corrected obvious errors which impute that the article, and The Free Thought are not reliable. Are you now trying to make some imputation about me, using the same approach? --Pkravchenko (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pkravchenko, why the continual reluctance to add inline citations despite repeated requests? is it because much of the text cannot be cited? the time spent arguing here could easily be spent adding inline citations. are you a member of this society or have a connection to it, your user page seems to indicate so. do you know the society's president? if you are a member you have sources to assist. I did not say Free Thought is not reliable. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2[edit]

  • Comment for the record, I have repeated requested for inline citations to be added to this article. sources are only provided as a bibliography and inline citations would greatly assist in establishing veracity of statements and hence notability. the continual refusal to add inline citations is of concern. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned the article contains original research. "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material.'. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:ORG, emphasis added: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." LibStar (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin I have logged a COI report at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ukrainian_Artists_Society_of_Australia.E2.80.8E regarding this AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've come here from COIN after seeing LibStar's note. As I've noted there Pkravchenko has effectively outed themselves and indicated that they have a conflict of interest. This raises a few issues, but to start with, as we are at AfD, they have access to sources that others, including LibStar, are unable to access. I agree that it is difficult to determine notability without seeing these sources as there are no online sources available (the gbooks hits are infact mirrors of wikipedia - see Books LLC). I'd suggest that this AfD is relisted, and so that the notability can be assessed, Pkravchenko provides copies of sources (scans or digital photographs) via email to myself or LibStar so that it is possible to see whether they constitute "multiple, significant, independent sources" to satisfy WP:GNG. Does this sound reasonable? SmartSE (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SmartSE, Since the nature of your offer implies that you are fluent in Ukrainian, I'd suggest that the English-speaking volunteers here would be more interested in WP:NONENG English footnotes of citations than your personal opinions regarding notability.  IMO the consensus here is that between WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF that this article is notable, that further AfD discussion is not constructive, and that AfD is not a vehicle for content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no I don't speak Ukranian, but it would still be relatively clear if I could look at some of the references whether or not they are directly addressing the society as we require to have an article on the society. These aren't "my personal opinions" but those of the community - and I've come here to try and mediate the disagreement above by offering to look over references and let others know whether they are suffficient to meet the requirements for inclusion. Respectfully, "IMO the consensus here is that between WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:AGF that this article is notable" makes no sense - you are quoting part of WP:V when we're here to discuss WP:N, which is not the same thing at all. Whilst we should AGF (and I am) that doesn't mean that we shouldn't question whether a subject is notable, when it has been written by someone with a COI - it naturally (and should) attract extra scrutiny to ensure that the article is compliant with our policies and guidelines. What's more further discussion is clearly required, since there is no clear consensus apparent in this discussion either way. SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says, "content must be [[WP:V|verifiable]]."  So I don't agree that WP:SOURCEACCESS is not relevant to WP:N.  Please make sure that you have read the entire AfD discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the content has not been verified despite repeated requests to the article creator who is in fact the President of the Society. if the content can't be verified i don't see how it can be notable. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not WP:N but Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) that says "content must be [[WP:V|verifiable]]."  WP:N says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation"  Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

given the lack of other sources that i cannot find, it would be reasonable to expect at least some citation to establish veracity of information in article. the continual refusal of the article creator/Society President to provide any citations says it all. this article is full of original research as far as I'm concerned. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would support relisting as a new AfD. Smartse's suggestion of actual evidence supplied of coverage of this topic is fully supported. Continually refusing to provide evidence of coverage and inline citation is not in the spirit of WP. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atmoz (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my primary concern that as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Any other organisation in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
whilst this isn't a reliable source as a self published source, this website states that a New South Wales Government minister attended one of the society's events. how come it still can't get any coverage in the Australian mainstream press? LibStar (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Free Thought which Unscintillating argues is press coverage is definitely media of limited interest and circulation. This does not mean it's not a valid publication just that it goes less to establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Enough frothing at the mouth and hysteria, hyenas! As the 99.99% author of the article, and as the anonymous User talk:LibStar and others claims my work is my own 'original' work, fraudulent, not notable, COI, etc, etc.), I hereby revoke any rights to the text by Wikipedia. I ask that the topic and page be immediately deleted from the Wikipedia site. --Pkravchenko (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC) --> (last post by --Pkravchenko (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    If you mean to revoke Wikipedia's right to use the content, then I'm afraid this is impossible. Every time you contribute, there is a section just below the editing window that says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." This article has been permanently released under the CC-BY-SA licence, and you are unable to revoke this.  -- Lear's Fool 13:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for explaining that. In that case, then, I'll revert my vote to keep, and will provide some inline sources, as requested. --Pkravchenko (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article needs better sourcing, not deletion. I really don't like the piling of close to 10 flags onto this piece, by the way, whoever did that needs to knock that stuff off... Carrite (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you haven't explained how this article meets WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. I give more limited weight to the GNG than some of us do, but it remains useful and even essential to settle matters about notability that cannot be settled otherwise, & this is an appropriate place to use it. The objects about access by Libstar are contradicted firmly by WP:RS guidelines, that sources need not be online, and WP:CITE, that inline citations are not necessary, except for disputed points. I suggest, though, that the article is disproportionate to the importance of the organization, to the extent that it comes acrossas somewhat promotional; in particular, the general background section is out of place here. After it's kept, I'll do some editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i do not object to sources not being online. my grounds for deletion are: as a 43 year old Australian organisation it fails to get any coverage in Australian mainstream press not even a passing mention despite being active as late as 2008. This is despite holding various public exhibitions. I searched 3 major Australian news websites (not google news) and found nothing. Any other organisation in Australia on WP would be held to a similar standard. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 16 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ukrainian_Artists_Society_of_Australia&oldid=1069198344"