Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merri Creek World War 2 bunker

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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merri Creek World War 2 bunker[edit]

This is a contested prod. This 'bunker' seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability and none of the references the article is based on are reliable sources. The article and its references basically say that this is a tunnel filled with rubble in suburban Melbourne, Australia which might be linked to a bunker complex. However, the references are all simply reports of claims made in December 2002 by the amateur archeologists who were excavating this tunnel and do not include any comments from experts or other secondary sources. In the references the amateurs claim that the tunnel might be linked to a larger network of bunkers, but there is no reference which says that anything has come out of that speculation in the subsequent five years. Moreover, none of the three references seems to qualify as a reliable source - one (ozatwar.com) is a self-published website which only cites the amateur archeologists as sources and the other two are radio interviews with the amateurs excavating the tunnel in which they make wild claims without citing any evidence (not even the Australian Army would leave a bunker full of weapons in the middle of suburban Melbourne) and casually note that the Australian military has no knowledge of the large bunker complex they claim was built underneath Melbourne.

In short, the article does not assert that this is anything more than a tunnel and a bunker which has been partially excavated and no reliable evidence of notability is provided. Many millions of similar structures must have been constructed around the world, and I doubt that any of them are notable. Another editor has already moved the article's content to Westgarth (Victoria) (the suburb the tunnel is located in), and it might not even be worth including there given the tunnel's overall lack of notability and the five-year old cystal ball gazing which the article is based on. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On reading the references it would appear that the name "bunker" rather understates its role; it may have been a major subterranean defence network, and certainly more than a simple pillbox. If there were other underground WW2 defence networks it woud make sense to grow it into a broader article, but in the absence of this a single article makes sense. There are plenty of other articles of this ilk held in WP, see: Dymchurch Redoubt, Fort Denison, and the various subterranea britannica links. Ephebi (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The references do not support that claim - they're basically 5 year old quotes from the people excavating the tunnel in which they speculate on its purpose without citing any actual research to support their views. The article does not state that the bunker complex they hoped to locate has actually been found in the subsequent five years, so it may not exist. This tunnel isn't comparable to a world-famous fort in the middle of Sydney Harbour. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An underground defence network built in Oz is clearly notable. Articles over the last few years in "The Age" have hinted at a largescale underground network (try googling - lots of hits). Some WP projects (also Google Maps etc.) have put in quite a bit of effort of into tracking this sort of thing, I don't see why Oz won't be different one day. In the absence of any broader article on this topic, the article stands, IMHO. On a point of order, can you please be careful about re-editing your previous comments. Your 10 edits to this AfD makes it very hard to actually understand what it you have said before, or what you are changing or restating. Thanks. Ephebi (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edits - my initial nomination was a bit vauge and I was trying to clarify why I think that this article is on a non-notable topic. I tried to be mindful of your comments when I edited the nomination so that what you were responding to remained unchanged. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 12:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five years ago some amateur archeologists dug where someone remembered there having been a tunnel during WW2. The references only cite these same few persons saying what they believe the tunnel/bunker "might" contain or might once have contained. It is all crystal ball speculation about what they are going to find, and it dates back 5 years. No independent and reliable sources such as the Australian government or qualified archeologists. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Edison (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether the claims of the bunker are true or not, this topic is still the subject of reliable secondary independent sources like the ABC's Radio National Breakfast [1] and Stateline [2] (btw, an interview is in fact "coverage" of a subject). Just by its enigma, it's notable. Any unverified claims need to be written as such, but that's a reason for re-writing, not deleting. --Oakshade (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is all speculation and conjecture. The interview "coverage" is what was already said - a couple amateurs (one is a lawyer, I guess) who are speculating that these tunnels MIGHT be bunkers. And this speculation happened five years ago, with nothing happening in the meantime - did they give up their quest? If anything, an article about this "project" could be written, although I would vote against that one, too. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this could be easily expanded to be like the Bankstown Bunker article, etc. JRG (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What sources can be drawn upon to do this? Nothing comes up on Google other than old speculation about the tunnel by the excavators. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, inadequate sources to support expansion.ALR (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unnotable, uncategorised, unfinished etc etc etc. --Drhlajos (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2008 (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.