Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian monarchist alliance

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 of the debate was Delete. Neutrality^talk 19:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

after removing copyvio material nothing notable remains that is not PoV FRS 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, per nom --FRS 00:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So fix it Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be a political party-- fix it would also be my vote --eleuthero 00:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is a collection of monarchists in Australia. Whether it is a notable group is another matter. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy is a notable group of Australian monarchists. I am yet to be convinced whether this group of monarchists with a Yahoo Group is. They are certainly not prominent in Australian politics. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 01:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Capitalistroadster on this one. I'm Australian, and I've never heard of them. Just because they're real doesn't mean they're notable worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Saberwyn 01:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable; POV. ERcheck 02:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No results in Australian and New Zealand media check. Small group with geocities page and Yahoo Group with 24 posts over the past week. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A small group without much activity, let alone publicity. JPD (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambi 12:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly written article which appears to be non-notable. The author (anon IP) needs to add quite a bit more detail and refs to justify keeping. He's written one other article (Dean Kalimniou) -- Ian ≡ talk 13:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV isn't a reason to delete, but non-notable is. Tedernst 18:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. If it is a badly-written article, and no-one cares enough to edit it, then get rid of it as not being worthy as an encyclopedia article. But until "non-notability" has been accepted by the community as a valid reason for deletion, it isn't one. Ground Zero | t 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GuardDog 01:35, 4 November 2005 (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.