Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (given that there are a clear indication that the general subject is worthy *and* that this could be a good starting point for it, I'll userfy the page at User:Eyedubya\Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre. See also: User talk:Eyedubya#Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre) - Nabla 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre

Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I don't believe the organisation meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. The only reference provided is a press release. As there are a series of redlinks for similar organisations in the article, I am listing it here to seek community consensus. Mattinbgn/ talk 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Two more references have been added: one from the State Parliament record (Hansard) of an item about the ASWC, the other a detailed listing at Vicnet, a major web-based resource for community services in Victoria (which I propose is a 'reliable source'). The press release referred to by Mattinbgn is a Ministerial press release from the Victorian State Government, i.e. it is a third-party, reliable source, devoted to the subject of the article, it is not a vanity publication by the subject of the article. Also, while there are redlinks in the article for similar organisations, this is because those organisations are yet to be covered, and ought to be. Anyone else interested in assisting with this area of interest, please contribute! Thanks. Eyedubya 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To clarify, the redlinks are not a problem in the context of this article. I raised them as an issue in this AfD as it may be useful to determine now if organisations of this type are notable or not prior to the creation of the redlinked articles. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
From the page and the links, these are a group of very similar organizations, and I find it highly likely that there might be a common sponsorship, which would then be the appropriate title of a merged article about them all.DGG 00:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Some of them may be have common sponsorhsip/auspice/funding sources, but not all of them do. In fact, this org (ASWC) is a bit of an outsider I get the impression (what with sectarianism and anti-church feelings in many parts of the community sector). blah blah. Eyedubya 07:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The only news reports on this centre are in local papers. [1]. Capitalistroadster 03:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the references. That's 3 'local' papers across different metropolitan municipalities, two adjacent to each other, one a very long way away from the other two, but all up, these papers serve a total of about 450,000 people in major inner and middle-ring suburbs of Melbourne, and are not local rags serving parochial interests (see who the owners of these papers are - this has already been dealt with in the discussion about notability and the same 'local' newspapers wrt the recent AfD discussion for Brunswick South Primary School. Indeed, some of the newspapers have long been noted on the WP article on Brunswick. Eyedubya 05:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy; at present, the article doesnt establish notability. If the Hansard recorded significant mentions of the organisation post the opening, I would be more inclined to consider it notable. I suggest creating a new article like Australian immigration services, to augment Immigration to Australia and Mandatory detention in Australia. John Vandenberg 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Re:Hansard: Despite the apparent date on this record (1991), the actual comment by G. Romanes must have been made after the opening, because Romanes wasn't a MHR then, she was a member of the former Brunswick City Council, while the ASWC co-ordinator referred to (M. Gibson) was working elsewhere. Thus, this Hansard entry must have been made after the opening of the ASWC. I agree, this article could be subsumed within one about 'Australian Migration and settlement services' or 'Australian Asylum Seeker Services', if such an article existed. I can't see the point of userfication as this might discourage other editors from either improving this article or moving it into a more 'generic' topic.Eyedubya 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    The Hansard says "The Brunswick-based Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre was opened two weeks ago by the Minister...", which is typical self-serving note taking of a Ministers activities .. it speaks little for the centre; if its services were noted in the Hansard over a year after opening, I would be more willing to accept it is notable. Organisations that assist or campaign for Asylum Seeker are not rare: why is this one more important than the rest?
    Having an article on ASWC doesn't say its more important than any of the other organisations that campaign for Asylum Seekers, it just happens to be one of the few articles about organisations that do this kind of work. If the logic you are suggesting was applied to say, popular music, there'd hardly be any articles at all because (say) in the opinion of (say) classical music lovers, 'it all sounds the same, so what makes any of these myriad bands any more important than the rest?'. Interestingly, the plight of displaced people is something that popular music artists like to associate themselves with from time to time, but who takes up more space on WP? I'd have thought that all organisations that do this kind of thing are worthy of a mention on WP, yet there is a theme in this debate that is about establishing whether any of these kinds of organisations are sufficiently notable for a mention on WP. Eyedubya 13:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    If you dont like the Userfication option, then my opinion is this article should be deleted, as I dont believe this article demonstrates notability. I doubt other editors will find this article, as it is an orphan, and will likely remain so because the meta-topic of "Australian asylum/immigration services" does not exist. Having only one Australian organisation in Wikipedia, esp. without a broader article, pushes this organisation up in the search results, usually to the disadvantage of similarly named orgs. John Vandenberg 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for another source to add to those I'm aware of that will be used to build some kind of article or other on WP on this important and notable topic, whatever its title ends up being. Thanks for your valuable assistance.Eyedubya 03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do I think this place exists? Yes. Does it do valuable work? Probably. Is it notable enough for inclusion? I don't think so. Lankiveil 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. Do we know that place exists? Yes, we have several sources of evidence for its existence. Does it do valuable work? Yes, we have several sources of evidence stating the value of its work. Is it notable enough for inclusion? Well, are the criteria for notability what one person happens to value, or the range of values expressed by the evidence provided? On the evidence so far provided, notability established. The question is whether the article should be expanded to deal with a category of like organisations, and I agree with this idea wholeheartedly Eyedubya 03:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    The guidelines on notability for organisations is WP:ORG. The reliable sources on the article are trivial mentions, and the google news archive clippings dont look terribly useful. So far, only the first sentence of the article that is about this org.; the rest is about other similar organisations or generic information about this type of organisation. If you userfy it, you can reintroduce the article about this organisation when your draft is in better shape. John Vandenberg 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have had cause to read the WP guidelines on notability a few times, and I have noted each time that one of the central tenets is also the one which is not defined within those guidelines, nor is it linked to a definition - i.e. 'trivial'. The only sensible definition I have had so far was from User:Sarah, saying that a trivial mention is one where a source cites the subject of the WP article, but only in passing, and only as a way of instanciating a generic phenomenon or type of organization, and that the particular subject mentioned in so passing could to all intents and purposes have been another organisation of the same kind. OK, I can accept that in some situations this is a 'trivial' mention. But I disagree that the sources cited in this case meet those criteria - the ASWC is not one of very many organizations of its kind, it is one of a very small number of organisations doing this kind of work. Furthermore, some might say it is actually the only one (in Melbourne) to offer its particular combination of services, and in such a high-profile, 'high-street' location. On this point, I note that the WP:ORG guidelines state that care needs to be taken not to prejudice small organisations in favour of large ones who are in the media spotlight. This organization is a case in point, and I am concerned that the line of thinking so far pursued by editors proposing deletion is supportive of this bias. I don't see why this article needs to be hived off onto my userpage to be worked on, given the number of other articles on WP that are less developed, have little or no referencing and are about topics that are at least as 'trivial' as how a society or a community organises itself to meet its commitments to human rights.Eyedubya 07:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Also FYI, I have made a few edits elsewhere that link this article to others - eg. Migrant Resource Centre, Immigration to Australia.Eyedubya 08:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not seem to meet WP:ORG. MichelleG 04:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please explain why it does not seem to meet WP:ORG?. Surely, mere assertions like this can't count for anything! This organisation has been the subject of several secondary sources. Its client base is statewide (Victoria, Australia), it is not a 'local service' - asylum seekers are widely dispersed. Eyedubya 07:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, lets go through the "references", as they currently stand.
      1. "Recognition of value of work by Moreland Council, 2003", a transcript featuring a throwaway mention by a local council. Does not indicate notability.
      2. "Asylum Seeker Centre, Sydney", does not even refer to this organisation, which is in Melbourne, a city hundreds of kilometres away.
      3. "Ministerial media release about the opening of the Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre 24/9/02", probably the best of the lot, even if it is just a media release. Media releases are not typically taken as reliable sources, or evidence of notability.
      4. "ASWC item in Victorian Parliamentary Hansard (scroll down to highlighted title)", brief mention in state parliament.
      5. "Listing at Vicnet", entry in what appears to be a directory.
      6. "Image of ASWC sign on Sydney Road, Brunswick by Michael Blamey", a picture of a sign. Enough said.
    • As said before, while I'm sure the work that's done is valuable, it's stretching it to say that this meets WP:ORG or WP:Notability, in my opinion. Lankiveil 12:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete None of the references are about the subject - except the last two, which only supply verification not notability. Get the submission which got the minister to open the place, that will be about the centre - the hansard entry is "why did the minister claim travelling allowances on the XXth of Month?"Garrie 02:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - All of the references are "about the subject", especially the first two, which are stating what it is ASWC does and what value this has - how else can notability be defined without using the word itself? While the latter two provide verification.Eyedubya 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (closing note 2nd keep by same user - Nabla 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment Let's go through the references again, as they stand, since Lankivell seems to be suffering from a bad case of POV and cynicism:
      1. "Recognition of value of work by Moreland Council, 2003" - the entire item focuses on the work of the ASWC and its history in order to justify waiving Council fees for the use of the Town Hall. This is not a 'throwaway line', this relates to a decision about the use of public assets and records that none other than Amnesty International were involved in the decision to establish the ASWC.
      2. "Asylum Seeker Centre, Sydney" - is at the end of a sentence stating that it is the only org in Sydney that is similar to ASWC - its clear that this reference is providing contextual information about the actual availability of services in general.
      3. "ASWC item in Victorian Parliamentary Hansard (scroll down to highlighted title)". The item is entirely about ASWC. It may not be very long, but it is more than a passing or brief mention, it is the focus of that particular entry.
      4. "Ministerial media release about the opening of the Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre 24/9/02" - whether this is taken as evidence of notability or not seems to be a POV issue on the value of Government media releases wrt any other form of press coverage. However, it does focus on the org, and its of reasonable length. In any event, it has to be asked if a Government media release is not evidence of notability, then why not? Cynicism about politicians isn't an acceptable response.
      5. "Listing at Vicnet" - indeed, this is a directory, but it is a directory on a website that is major networking and information source for the community sector in Victoria, used by a very large number of community services agencies to conduct their business across the state.
      6. "Image of ASWC sign on Sydney Road, Brunswick by Michael Blamey" - the point is, a third party has seen fit to photograph this sign, of all of the several thousands of signs in Sydney Road, and put it on their blog.

Its getting to the point where the prejudices of some editors are clouding their reason.Eyedubya 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - This one only just gets over the bar. It's been extensively covered in local newspapers (which are, if I'm not mistaken, News Ltd owned), has received notice in state parliament, has been the subject of two independent reports, and has been referenced in HREOC papers. It's a tricky one, but I prefer to err on the side of "keep" on this one, and sort out the quality of the article thereafter. Orderinchaos 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or create a generic article on these types of centres. I agree with Lankiveil that notability is not yet established. There are not enough sources referenced in the article to establish notability. This is not to say it is not notable, only that it is not established by the article yet. If the newspapers are relied upon, they should be included and worked into the article. The Moreland Council document is a primary document and is not independent of the centre anyway as they helped set up the centre. A mention is parliament doesn't make you notable either (although multiple mentions might). The other choice is to create a generic article listing these centres in Melbourne, Victoria or Australia, and merging that information into that article. Change the title of the page to "Victorian Refugee Welcome Centres" or something similar, and include some more information on the other centres mentioned. Assize 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Lankiveil's concise argument. Not up to WP:ORG. —Gaff ταλκ 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to vote keep because its a worthy cause. However, to address some issues on the references: many of these are not about the topic, but mentions of the topic in a directory (this does not indicate notability); several of the references are from court documents eg [2] or similar items (such as a photograph of the place on somebody's blog). This verifies existence, but that is not the same as notability and is not reason to include it in an encyclopedia. Maybe there are some good references that I am missing buried in the heap of other sources, but right now I am not seeing them. —Gaff ταλκ 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
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.