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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ringwood Field Naturalists Club

Ringwood Field Naturalists Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability found, sources in article are primary, other sources are routine or passing. Article is one of a group of quid-pro-quo promo pieces between the Field Naturalist Clubs in Victoria, Australia and Wikimedia Australia, created by one and moved back out of draft (against the COI/PAID guidelines) by a paid member of the other. Fram ( talk) 12:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Australia. Fram ( talk) 12:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect. There's a whole rash of these ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, all recent but for the last) – apparently Wikimedia Australia has given a grant to create them. Wikimedia Australia would have done well to read WP:NCORP before doing so. This one at least seems to be resoundingly non-notable (the references I've checked are all trivial passing mentions), but I don't think deletion is the best course – better to redirect them, either to a list of Australian Field Naturalists Clubs or to Field Naturalists Club of Victoria. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, we can only Redirect to an existing target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

we can only Redirect to an existing target article — That may not be strictly true, as evidenced by the existence of Special:BrokenRedirects.

However it would be trivial to create List of Australian Field Naturalists Clubs, or similar, if appropriate - if nothing else, as a stub article containing a list of the clubs whose names redirect there, plus the current red linked articles in Field Naturalists Club of Victoria § Regional groups. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi All,

Thank you for your interest in the pages we've been creating for the Field Naturalist Clubs of Victoria. It would be lovely to have your support as we build these pages about the incredible contribution these community organisations have made to Victoria's heritage. Here is the background about the work we're doing.

I manage the Australia branch of the Biodiversity Heritage Library, which is funded by the Atlas of Living Australia ( CSIRO) to make Australia's biodiversity heritage literature (the foundation of our understanding of biodiversity) freely accessible online. BHL Australia started (in 2010) with just one organisation, Museums Victoria, and we now digitise material on behalf of 50 organisations across Australia. Most of these organisations would never have the resources to do this work themselves.

In 2023, BHL Australia received two grants to gather the history of Victoria’s field naturalists' clubs.

The first, a Public Record Office Victoria (PROV) Local History Grant, is funding the digitisation of the legacy publications of Victoria’s field naturalists’ clubs and the creation of an online collection on the BHL website (see Capturing the history of the regional field naturalist clubs of Victoria, Australia). I am managing the grant, but the grant funding is being used in its entirety to employ a Digitisation Officer within the BHL Australia team (for 1 day/week for 1 year).

The second, a Wikimedia Australia Partner Project Grant, is enabling the creation of Wikipedia pages and Wikidata records for each field naturalist club, their publications and people, and the uploading of archival images into Wikimedia Commons (see The Regional Field Naturalists Clubs of Victoria). The funding is being used to employ a Wikimedian in Residence (1 day/week for 5 months), and to assist with travel costs from Melbourne to each Victorian region to meet with club members to review/capture historic archives and photographs (we're travelling by train).

The publications of Victoria’s field naturalists contain critical information about the biodiversity of their specific region across time. They also detail the rich history of the organisations themselves and the people behind them. For those who were not white men, these community publications may contain the only published reference of their name (references critical to Wikipedia’s notability requirements).

We will be working on this project until the end of June and will continue to expand each page as we gather more information about the rich history and impact of each club. We were hoping that others in the Wikimedia community would be supportive of this endeavour and might contribute their knowledge and expertise to the pages we'd started (which is what we thought Wikimedia was all about). We've been disheartened and disappointed by comments that we are producing "quid-pro-quo promo pieces". Thus far, each article has been written without any input at all from any member of any of the Field Naturalists Clubs.

I would be most appreciative if you could hold off deleting our efforts until the completion of our project (July 2024).

Kind regards, Nicole Nicolekearney ( talk) 07:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Nicole, thanks for your efforts on these topics on and off Wikipedia. Regarding the Wikimedia grant, I have a question based on the decription at its Wikimedia project page.

The section relevant to Wikipedia clearly states the notability prerequisite for creating pages (emphasis mine), all the other activities supported by the grant being relevant to Wikimedia Commons or Wikidata :

"...creating a Wikipedia page for each notable Field Naturalist Club, complete with Introduction, Current Activities, History, Publications, References, images, and links;"

What analysis for notability is being done before creating Wikipedia pages for each Field Naturalist Club? Shazback ( talk) 01:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Delete Move to sandbox for cleanup the more I look for sourcing the more I'm finding that Ringwood Field Naturalists Club has links into other subjects that would each require a a paragraph about the RFNC making one article at the centre does appear logical outcome. Christine Evelyn Gray [1], Jack Hyett [2], Biodiversity Heritage Library, Birdlife Australia, then there are government agencies with information Collections Victoria, Environment Victoria. I havent yet explored all the various research and observational data that RFNC has provided to Biota studies. Therefore this may appear to be not notabile yet it is a significant connecting piece(valid daughter article) to many other subjects. All we have is a underrepresented subject area that has started to be covered and that has drawn flack because WMAU has actively supported closing the gap in this subject. RFNC is also used by the Russian Federal Nuclear Centre along many sporting codes making it harder search target. Trove or Trove is returning many newspaper, books, photographs, and scientific reports going back to 1960's Victorian National Parks Association. (1953), News letter, Melbourne, Vic: Victorian National Parks Association, nla.obj-3011258200, retrieved 14 March 2024 – via Trove. Gnan garra 13:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• • Looking at your links: [3] is about a person who is also a founding member of the club, but the club is not the focus of attention in the link, nor a reason why she is notable. [4] is an extremely passing mention. This again is a truly passing mention, saying nothing about the club. The 5 mentions in Trove [5] don't give the impression that this is a notable club or that Trove will yield amazing results here. Fram ( talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • And no, the articles haven't "drawn flack because WMAU has actively supported closing the gap in this subject.", the articles have received criticism because they seem to be about non-notable subjects or at the very least to a very poor job indicating notability, the WMAU (of which you are a former president I see, might explain the touchiness) received flak for seemingly promising to the organisation that they could have articles on here in conjunction with uploading their documents to commons and the like, without any care whether the different clubs or other topics actually met the basic requirements to have an article here. Fram ( talk) 14:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    your reasoning for deletion is Article is one of a group of quid-pro-quo promo pieces between the Field Naturalist Clubs in Victoria, Australia and Wikimedia Australia I have no idea about the current functioning of WMAU executive, if you have proof please publish it and I'll taken them to task over it also agree to deletion on that basis alone. Yes I was previously a committee member includng holding the office of President for 2 years, and a member since before it was founded. I've been contributing here for 19ish years never in that time have I been anything but impartial in my contributions, even as an admin I have deleted many articles about Australian subjects that werent notable. I am concerned when an experienced editor makes unfounded accusation about third parties within an AFD that cant be refuted, knowing full well this will influence the outcome of the AFD.

    On Notability: There are 266 mentions of RFNC in trove newspapers, along others in books, journals, and images what I know to be true is that records since the 1970's arent readily available online even via trove though it's is a good starting point. What we have is a subject that links to many potential articles, it probably shouldnt have been started yet, it might be better as a section in a higher level article but that doesnt exist either, which by your response here will also likely be nominated for deletion when its created. Like you I'm a few thousand miles away from paper sources, I also rely on what I can see online and my experienced, local knowledge it appears to be enough to establish notability and explore the topic. Gnan garra 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

    • My reason for deletion is "No evidence of notability found, sources in article are primary, other sources are routine or passing." And no, there are not 266 mentions of RFNC in Trove, I already refuted that above but apparently need to do so again. You searched for the 4 words "separately", which gives results like this or this. Hell, even within your search, there are only 12 results from 1960 or later (the club was founded in 1961). Please be more careful when presenting search results as evidence of anything. Fram ( talk) 08:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

      • Article is one of a group of quid-pro-quo promo pieces between the Field Naturalist Clubs in Victoria, Australia and Wikimedia Australia please remove this unfounded comment which is salting any reasonible discussion and building of consensus. Asking again if you have proof of your allegation then post it here so approriate action can be taken. Please be more careful in future discussions to keep unfounded conspiracy as evidence of anything Gnan garra 09:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

      • It is my interpretation of the discussions about the grant, where they get money to upload their publications, and in return, because "These organisations currently have very little presence online" (words of page creator) and got a grant "to digitise the publications of Victoria’s Field Naturalists’ Clubs." and in return are promised by Wikimedia.au that they will be "creating a Wikipedia page for each Field Naturalist Club, complete with Introduction, Current Activities, History, Publications, References, images, and links;". The author also stated "I will continue to work on making each club's Wikipedia page worthy of publication because I have received a grant from Wikimedia Australia specifically to create these pages." which is either a misinterpretation by the author or an overreach by Wikimedia Australia, who shouldn't be handing out money on the condition that pages are created when it is very unclear that the subjects are actually notable. Now, this is my interpretation of things, you are free to have a different interpretation. The claim about the 266 Trove hits for the RFNC are not an interpretation though, it is a factual claim which turned out to be incorrect, but which you haven't retracted. Fram ( talk) 09:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

        • Ok, I agree with your interpretation of what is published at https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/The_Regional_Field_Naturalists_Clubs_of_Victoria in that it doesnt say articles must comply with en:wp policies it appears to over reached. I will follow up with WMAU Gnan garra 10:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

          As promised I followed this up with WMAU, the aim is to collaborate and improve the amount of knowledge on Wikipedia about the Field Naturalists Club the work they have and continue to do. Historically these clubs have been the foundation upon a lot of scientific information has been collected. From there a significant awareness of the need to protect places many of Victorias reserves and National park creation have come from that data. On the other side of the coin these groups have also been part of the foundation for the Green movement which now impacts the Governments of Victoria. WMAU aim is to bring this information to light and share resources in a positive way. RFNC is notable but I agree the sourcing thats available online to verify isnt as available if the offline written sources were added now I doubt WP:AGF on the source would be considered, either delete to send to sandbox(my preference) until more can done. Gnan garra 04:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

          Gnangarra, I've made two suggestions above that would allow at least some of the content of this page to be preserved while respecting our notability policy; is deletion really preferable to those options? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

          putting it in a sandbox will preserve all of it, also happy for parts to be used in other article. I'm just thinking Deleting will create a full reset and this approach will hopefully remove the issue raised by @ Fram: out of any future article creation consideration. Gnan garra 09:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm disappointed that no new editors have joined this discussion since the last relisting which we could really benefit from. I see two reasonable outcomes, either Redirecting this article to Field Naturalists Club of Victoria#Regional groups or Draftifying this article where it can be worked on. The list of clubs page would be preferable but, like I said, we can't Redirect a page to a nonexistent target (and a broken redirect page would just be deleted). So, which of these two outcomes would be preferable to the participants here? I'm hoping for a quick closure once we stop discussing grants and focus on outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You can have both: how about draftify with a note on the talk-page to any further editors working on the article that if they cannot demonstrate notability of individual clubs they should instead consider creating a list of clubs, and converting the individual one into a redirect? That way, we don't have an inadequate article in main space, nor do we have an AfD decision that depends on someone doing the work of creating the list (small work, but not a job of little satisfaction to either "side"). Elemimele ( talk) 07:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Draft - seems to me that this is the best option whilst the work is ongoing. It seems possible that sources may be found during the work which show that notability has been established. JMWt ( talk) 11:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Draftify: Seems like the only possible way right now. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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.