Talk:Lot's Wife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Lot's Wife is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This page should not be deleted as it is of significant importance. Lot's Wife has become a prestigious institution of Monash University and the past contributors of the organisation are of considerable notoriety. Many of them have links to their own pages and the entry is a vaulable information resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lots Wife (talk • contribs)

Sorry for nominating this article, I see now how it is notable. J Milburn 12:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a whole heap of inter-Wikipedia links so now the article is less isolated -- Lima Golf ^{Talk | Contributions} 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have only just come across this info and as a 65yo dinosaur who does not [cannot] use the medium just want to say that your history is not exactly accurate. If you want more info on Farm News/ Chaos/ Lots Wife give me a call. o3 97181361 or petesteedman AT hotmail DOT com

I removed the reference to the Liberal Party vis-a-via Helas, since there is no evidence to support the claim. Angelfire1982

Simply because an Australian of note is a past editor of the magazine is not enough to be notable. Page was also created by the editors of the publication as a piece of blateant self promotion. Argument could be made that editors are in best position to give bio and information about publication, however article is still not relevant. Recommend speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.13.102 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 130.194.13.102 The article is of poor quality and the username Lot'sWife suggests the article has been created by someone within the organisation. No verifiable statement of notability. If not fixed should be listed as AfD ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediabot (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Con Helas has been returned (this time with some references) however I would argue it should go. It's not of sufficient importance, begs the question "who are these people", and you could argue there have been much more important and relevant controversies in the Lot's Wife history (such as student's occupying the office in protest on several occasions). I don't think Con Helas would be too happy to read this either, where is the individuals protection? Yu can argue a celebrity or notable person no longer has that sort of protection, but a private individual should have it. 130.194.13.104 (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)