Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Farmers' Five

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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Farmers' Five

The Farmers' Five (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article concerns the first five settlers in a minor Victorian location. Nothing happened in any of their lives of any interest and I can't see anyhing that makes them genuinely notable. Grahame (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - notability not established, sources scarce. Google search shows no relevant results. Huon (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I truly hope that one day google searches (its just another search engine) are banned as any form of proof one way or the other on a subject like this - far more relevant - specially as there is a poem and genealogy issue there - http://protocat.nla.gov.au/Search/Home?lookfor=+farmers+five&type=all&filter%5B%5D=&submit=Find - the NLA website - far more relevant has nothing on its first page - as a consequence - despite the effort in putting the info and poem in - it is obviously a genealogy blog candidate not wikipedian SatuSuro 09:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Early Australian immigrant settlers just like thousands of insignificant others. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Lack of Google sources is easily explained by the fact that there was no Internet during the settlement of Australia, but these five still look to have only very local notability at best. I'd need to see some cites from books and the like before I was convinced of their notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC).
    • Clarification, just to clarify, I'm not saying that they're not notable because there's nothing on Google, I'm saying that they're not notable because there's nothing anywhere else as far as I can see. Obviously relying on Ghits as the sole method to assess the notability of a subject like this one will produce less than reliable results. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep Okay, I'll be the odd man out here with this vote. I support SatuSuro's comment on the unreliable nature of Google searching as the be-all/end-all way to determine notability. On the niche subject of early Australian history, it is notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability cannot be established by subjectively arguing that a topic is important to a particular area. Notibility is an objective concept refering to "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The reference provided does not include the publisher, and it appears that if "Bill O'Callaghan" ever wrote for a publication called "The Cronical"(sic) or "The Chronicle", then it was probably not a very widely distributed publication.[1] -- Mark Chovain 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I just located and added a new link from an Australian site seeking out the descendants of the Farmers' Five. It appears someone out there (or Down Under) knows of this quintet. If there is notability, it would be unique to a corner of Australia. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I just can't see this one getting anywhere near the bar. We need multiple, independent, reliable sources. An improperly sourced local newsletter (so badly sourced that we have no hope of verifying it); and a post by someone calling themselves "JackieC" on a some internet forum, requesting information on behalf of a third party just don't cut it. -- Mark Chovain 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Nice poem but just not notable for a Wikipedia article. Orderinchaos 01:10, 30 April 2008 (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.