Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Transformation Agency

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Transformation Agency (edit | 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)

Government agency doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG- in-depth coverage in independent sources is limited to WP:ROUTINE announcements about its formation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. After almost 2 weeks there is no consensus for deletion, so let's put this out of its misery. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Government agencies are generally notable. Rathfelder (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Government department involved in multiple areas. Gusfriend (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: They have a GitHub page at https://github.com/govau where they share Australian Government related source code. They are working with the ASD on securing Government systems at https://www.cyber.gov.au/acsc/view-all-content/media-releases/joint-statement-digital-transformation-agency-and-australian-signals-directorate-secure-internet-gateways-update. They have responsibility for "Supporting government to source ICT products and services, find sellers and discover existing government platforms." and the new site BuyICT.gov.au for whole of Government IT procurement. Cloud.gov.au was shut down (https://www.innovationaus.com/dtas-redundant-cloud-platform-decommissioned/). They got a new chief executive (https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7449642/new-boss-appointed-to-the-digital-transformation-agency/) but also had a few people leave (https://www.itnews.com.au/news/dta-loses-half-its-leadership-team-to-defence-services-australia-574265). I think that there is information out there. Gusfriend (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, which Wikipedia policy states that government agencies are generally notable please? MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know about any policy. Its a fact that government agencies generally get plenty of coverage in independent sources. This one already seems to have quite a bit and its likely to get more. What it is supposed to be doing is newsworthy. Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• More interesting links
  • An article about the refocussing of the DTA on to the MyGov work at https://www.itnews.com.au/news/dta-kills-last-of-platform-pilots-as-focus-shifts-to-mygov-rebuild-567983.
  • As of July last year Services Australia took control of MyGov from DTA and gave Deloitte a contract for work at https://www.innovationaus.com/deloitte-given-further-5m-for-mygov-work/.
  • Information on MyGov and STA view of gov it spend at https://www.zdnet.com/article/mygov-customer-base-increased-to-20-million-in-2020-21/.
  • MyGov related work around an identity platform at https://www.biometricupdate.com/?s=mygov.
  • Government digital strategy at https://ministers.dese.gov.au/robert/digital-government-strategy-make-australia-world-leading-digital-government

With all of these references (total effort so far about 10 minutes) there is enough to improve the page. I should also note that the previous version of the agency is redirected here so we already have a single page for 2 departments. I would update the page myself but I am working on some other pages at the moment. Gusfriend (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - previous editors have demonstrated there is clearly enough to meet notability standards. Deus et lex (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: interesting nomination by MrsSnoozyTurtle, whose assessment I always trust. But, in this particular AfD discussion, I would prefer to observe and learn. - Hatchens (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments like "Government agencies are generally notable" are unsupported by inclusion guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - regardless of any lack of inherent notability, I'd argue that the sources provided by Gusfrend show that the agency is notable for Wikipedia standards. Deus et lex (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]