- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Activity centre
- Activity centre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Likely WP:OR, and it's essentially unsourced (as I shall explain). Apart from the obvious Melbourne focus, there are some inconsistencies in citation that make me think this may be copyvio or a copy of someone's thesis. For example, there are numerous inline "[3]" references in the text which don't link to anything. Those refs are then followed by a wikied ref, but none of the wikied refs appear in the reflist. Also in the reflist is a cut and paste biblio that is not used in the article. So I don't quite know what it is, so I'm not sure if it's speediable, but I do know it is not appropriate in its current form and cannot be used without blanking the page entirely, so we might as well delete the article. MSJapan ( talk) 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: It's badly written, but it's still salvageable IMO. A quick Google search (which, BTW, User:MSJapan, you should have done yourself) reveals that the term is used primarily in Australia, but it is used rather extensively and therefore is probably the official term for a certain type of project in Australia. I would note that being a terminology primarily confined to a single country is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. p b p 04:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Of course I did a Google search. How else do you think I figured out I couldn't source the material in the article? Anyhow, I don't deny "Activity centre" is a topic, and I did not say that it was not. As I said, my problem is with the article content. I was unable to source any statement made in the article, and I maintain the formatting indicates copyvio or OR. Speaking of, the copyvio tag you put on it is wrong - Liquisearch is a WP fork, not the other way around, and the source link is at the bottom of the page. TL;DR is that the article as it stands is not usable, and rewriting what's there isn't going to fix the lack of citable statements. MSJapan ( talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I did a copyvio search and found that the lead is duplicated at hubpages.com (I can't include the exact link here due to WP:BLACKLIST). I beleive it is more likely that this site copied our text than vise-versa. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established by scholarly sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The other problems cited by the nom can be fixed through article improvement and do not require deletion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There's enough sources here to establish notability within the urban planning community (esp. Australia). Clearly enough to negate the WP:OR argument. Needs some cleanup. Cleanup & Keep. ERK talk 22:47, 21 June 2016 (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.
- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Activity centre
- Activity centre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Likely WP:OR, and it's essentially unsourced (as I shall explain). Apart from the obvious Melbourne focus, there are some inconsistencies in citation that make me think this may be copyvio or a copy of someone's thesis. For example, there are numerous inline "[3]" references in the text which don't link to anything. Those refs are then followed by a wikied ref, but none of the wikied refs appear in the reflist. Also in the reflist is a cut and paste biblio that is not used in the article. So I don't quite know what it is, so I'm not sure if it's speediable, but I do know it is not appropriate in its current form and cannot be used without blanking the page entirely, so we might as well delete the article. MSJapan ( talk) 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: It's badly written, but it's still salvageable IMO. A quick Google search (which, BTW, User:MSJapan, you should have done yourself) reveals that the term is used primarily in Australia, but it is used rather extensively and therefore is probably the official term for a certain type of project in Australia. I would note that being a terminology primarily confined to a single country is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. p b p 04:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Of course I did a Google search. How else do you think I figured out I couldn't source the material in the article? Anyhow, I don't deny "Activity centre" is a topic, and I did not say that it was not. As I said, my problem is with the article content. I was unable to source any statement made in the article, and I maintain the formatting indicates copyvio or OR. Speaking of, the copyvio tag you put on it is wrong - Liquisearch is a WP fork, not the other way around, and the source link is at the bottom of the page. TL;DR is that the article as it stands is not usable, and rewriting what's there isn't going to fix the lack of citable statements. MSJapan ( talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I did a copyvio search and found that the lead is duplicated at hubpages.com (I can't include the exact link here due to WP:BLACKLIST). I beleive it is more likely that this site copied our text than vise-versa. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established by scholarly sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The other problems cited by the nom can be fixed through article improvement and do not require deletion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 02:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There's enough sources here to establish notability within the urban planning community (esp. Australia). Clearly enough to negate the WP:OR argument. Needs some cleanup. Cleanup & Keep. ERK talk 22:47, 21 June 2016 (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.