The result was no consensus. One (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A short-lived supporter group who received no independent coverage from North Melbourne Football Club. The creator of the article has a potential conflict of interest. Mattinbgn\talk 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated three reasons for deleting this entry, so I'll respond to those in turn:
Firstly, that We Are North Melbourne is shortly lived supporter group. This is incorrect. We Are North Melbourne was incorporated as a legal entity in November 2007 and is an ongoing concern with a current website.
Secondly, that We Are North Melbourne received no independent coverage form North Melbourne. Given the purpose of the group (as its name implies) I would have thought this is fair enough. The existence of We Are North Melbourne is intrinsically linked with the North Melbourne Football Club. It played a role in an issue of historical interest and I would have thought this is of interest to Wikipedia users. Other similar groups are listed on Wikipedia, such as: The Boston United Supporters' Trust, Manchester United Supporters' Trust, Rangers Supporters Trust, Independent Manchester United Supporters Association and Screaming_Eagles_(D.C._United). It's worth pointing out that the WANM artcile cites a great many more references than any of these groups.
Thirdly, yes I am involved with WANM, so there is a conflict of interest. But I understand that who has written the material should be irrelevant, so long as Wikipedia policies are closely adhered to. In this case I have attempted to write from a neutral point of view and have cited references for anything that might be contestable. Acoording to the guidelines, "an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias." And I would welcome this kind of review.
Dave.wheaton (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the primary criteria for notability at Wikipedia:ORG: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability."
I think the WANM article meets the notability criteria for an organisation because:
1. The depth of coverage is sometimes "substantial." For example, this article is substantially about WANM: [1]
2. When the coverage is not substantial, neither is it trivial or incidental. For example, the column inches devoted to WANM in this article may not be substantial, but 80 words on the front page of The Age (Melbourne's only daily broadsheet newspaper) is hardly trivial or incidental. I would think that front page coverage in any capital city daily news paper would be pretty good evidence of notability. [2]
3. There are now 18 secondary sources cited in the article referencing WANM's media coverage. This should meet the "multiple independent sources" requirement.
4. The wide range of media outlets/articles cited provide evidence of a "strong indication of notability" from national, regional and local media.
--Dave.wheaton (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]