Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Alliance (Australia)

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 delete by Blnguyen. WjBscribe 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left Alliance (Australia)[edit]

content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not Verifiable in a reliable source, as it contravenes No Original Research, little prospect of these problems being rectified as now a non-existent organisation Croster 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Croster 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the ~~National Broad Left~~ or National Union of Students.--JForget 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Factions which have been documented independently of the NUS should be mentioned at that article. Filling the NUS article up with a list of short-lived factions that didn't really get off the ground, won't be improving it.Garrie 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry for the same remark x3. I see why these were listed individually, following on from the original AfD, but in my opinion this could have been a group list.Ga rr ie 21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there is any evidence for actual separate existence. I think this the only way of dealing with the possibility of bias. If there really is no evidence at all for this, then merge. I advocate this approach to groups of all political persuasions, including ones I sincerely dislike--its the only way I've found to deal with my own possible bias. DGG 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google News Archive comes up with some relevant hits mainly from the Green Left Weekly. The list of office holders needs to go as well as other material needs to go. The question is whether there is enough material to warrant a stand alone article. [1]. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Garrie. I don't think the GLW is a reliable source, and as a student faction they get little press elsewhere - hence the value to the encyclopaedia is slight. Orderinchaos 10:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No secondary sources, therefore not notable per WP:N. Agree with Orderinchaos that GLW isn't a reliable source on its own. Assize 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as articles like this often become a seething mess of speculation and defamation, and are not worth the bother if there is a question of WP:N. Weak because good archived news sources from 10-20 years ago can be difficult to find online, and the sheer amount of press for these guys on GLW suggests they may have been covered by more reliable sources. Aliasd 15:39, 22 June 2007 (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.