Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australians in Film

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, and I have discounted the sole "Delete" vote as independent coverage has been found in spades. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australians in Film[edit]

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

The article claims to be about an organization, but I can find no independent sources to back up its notability as an organization. I'm also concerned that it claims to be back by the Australian government, but the domain registration is to a person living in New York, NY, USA [1]. I am One of Many (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an advert, unless some independent coverage can be found to hint at any notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "COULD" be a viable list article that may be maintained through regular editing. While current sourcing is lacking, if properly focused and changed to either List of Australian actors or List of Australian filmmakers, properly sourced, and set to include only those determinable as notable, this list article can support such as List of former child actors from Australia, List of current child actors from Australia, and List of Australian film directors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some relevant press coverage may possibly be found at the Fairfax News Store Paul foord (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altenatively, if not changed into a list article, as a TOPIC, the organization appears to be subject of or part of enough coverage to meet WP:ORG and be an article that would benefit the project with just a bit of editorial oversite:

Sydney Morning Herald May 25, 2004

MSNBC September 26, 2008

Business Wire May 28, 2008

The Age May 11, 2009

USA Today June 10, 2008

Courier Mail May 5, 2007

Westside Today April 4, 2009

Sydney Morning Herald May 12, 2006

KATU June 23, 2008

Reading Eagle November 6, 2008

The Age January 14, 2005

X17 Online June 6, 2008

Chicago Tribune June 7, 2008

Ok! Magazine September 29, 2008

While we might end up starting from scratch, it appears to be a notable organization and worthy of inclusion. As a topic, this BRAND NEW ARTICLE simply needs some attention by experienced editors so as to best serve Wikipedia. When its contributor is blocked for choosing the organization's name as his username, he can be advised to pick a better username and then to study those essays developed for new contributors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good job of tracking this down! It turns out that there is a .org [2] website, which is the right age and has the expected registration information [3] and then there is a .com [4] website, which appears identical but the registration information doesn't look right [5] and it was registered more recently than the articles above. So, I know believe that the organization is legit and notable and I'm willing to withdraw the nomination for a speedy keep.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:44, 18 May 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.