Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dialogue Australasian Network

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. Sandstein 21:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue Australasian Network

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

Promotional, with excessive detail. Relatively local significance only. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not promotional in any way. Nor is it part of any promotional campaign? It simply states the history and nature of this educational network.There are many examples of similar networks on Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Teachers_of_Mathematics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Education

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Education_Association

and many hundreds more. Many of these associations are far more local than this association which includes New Zealand and Australian schools. Haven't you people got anything better to do with your time> Sydney59 (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Somewhat notable, borderline promotional. I lean towards keeping a promotional cleanup tag, because I think it's better that Wikipedia has an article on this network and there's still a good amount of content worth saving on the page. Appable (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is not promotional and Wikipedia is richer for its inclusion. Given the boatloads of material on subjects like Robinson family, shouldn't we give some extra time to more worthy non-fiction, and populate categories like Category:Australian educational programs to maybe 1% of Category:Neighbours characters? Promotion? Promotion of educational programs? Wikipedia should have an article on this educational network and if not this one perhaps Duff Beer for me or DGG would like to research and write one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and duffbeerforme. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page is not advertising. It was originally written by me as a history of the association. It received a "B" rating then and deserves a little more respect that some 'editors' are giving it. The association has been going for 15 years and deserves a place on Wikipedia. Those people who suggest lack of notability are either not involved in education or live in a Euro-American centric part of the Wiki world. The network is notable in Australasian educational setting. Editors are reminded that as far as neutrality is concerned ;

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."

Please note: I am not even a member of this association. 58.110.175.88 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG, this is promotional, and does not have sufficient notability outside its region. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2015 (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.