Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean Up Australia

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. It's snowing here. Jenks24 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

pure promotionalism. Local sources for local events. This is part of Clean Up the World, which might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From my understanding, Clean Up Australia predates Clean Up the World. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 22:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is notable event independent of Clean Up the World. Tone should be improved from promotional to neutral. Donama (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this deletion proposal is a non australian's reverse reading of the subject - it fails to see that the specific project started in Australia, and in itself it was a struggle, and in fact a notable project that took time and energy to work on a specific mindset in Australia. The notability issue is reverse as well, the clean up australia being more than the world. is part of clean up the world shows a reverse reading of the sequence and the notability and context.JarrahTree 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily notable. Sources could use some work, but it's not as though there's a shortage of non-local coverage. Frickeg (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, block nominator for disruption. This is a massive national event with a colossal amount of sources, and one that would be extraordinarily obvious if they had done the teensiest Google. As another editor said - what, are overseas editors going to nominate the Sydney Harbour Bridge or Vegemite next? The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Huge national (and later international) event, held annually for over a quarter of a century with plenty of secondary sources. Obviously influential, having led to a worldwide event, so is not "part of" a global program. Suggest better, external sources for the sub-events, but this is an easily-remedied content and tone issue—deletion would be unnecessary, and frankly, lazy. --Canley (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2015 (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.