Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AUFORN

AUFORN

A UFO "research" network. Google news: no hits. Factiva: no hits. Cited sources: none. Other subjects edited by creator:none. Assertions of notability: none. Creator in this instance means the individual who changed this from being a redirect to the The Disclosure Project, itself tagged as {{spam}}, and then complained on the admin notice board about "vandalism" (i.e. addition of an {{importance}} tag). Guy (Help!) 13:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles. I'm not given enough time to edit the article properly. I was in the middle of editing the article when I got the obtrusive message stating it's nominated for deletion. Note my link website to the AUFORN official website. It does exist. It's in the External links section of the article (works in progress as i write this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantom555 (talk • contribs)

Merely existing is not enough. AUFORN has to meet the notability guidelines for organizations, as outlined in WP:N and WP:ORG. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AUFORN website is not a Wikipedia reliable enough source to use to justify a separate article on AUFORN. You need to have footnotes (references) and those footnotes need to cite to newspaper articles, books, and the like. I checked available newspaper articles. Most of the newspaper articles on AUFORN only mention when they are having a meeting and have a quote or two from an AUFORN member. I've created numerous Wikipedia articles and, even with enough time to edit the article properly, there is not enough information about the organization AUFORN contained in newspapers to support an independent Wikipedia article on the organization AUFORN. If you really want a separate Wikipedia article on AUFORN, issue press releases to have one or several reliable newspapers write up the history of AUFORN. Then you can use those newspaper articles to build the Wikipedia AUFORN article. If you locate enough Wikipedia reliable sources containing information on the organization AUFORN, post a note on my talk page and I'll help you create a proper Wikipedia article.-- Jreferee 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no verifiable third party sources to establish the importance of this group. For now I have to say delete because there is a distinct lack of any reliable sourcing.--Isotope23 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If not deleted, merge/redirect to Australian Disclosure Project. Not much stand alone information here. --Onorem 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough Wikipedia independent sources to maintain a separate article. So that the deletion won't result in loss of valuable content, I added/merged all notable information about AUFORN here. -- Jreferee 16:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Australian Disclosure Project although a Google News Archive search does come up with something on this organisation. [1]
A few more reliable sources could convert me to a keep. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Me[reply]
Delete, I can't seem to find any reliable third-party sources. Will change my opinion if some are provided illustrating the existance and notability of this group. Lankiveil 05:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and WP:WEB. SkierRMH,08:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG - Auforn + UFOlogist Magazine + Earthlink are one of the same, a private company owners Mr Diane & Robert Frola - They run under "Earthlink Publications (Aust) Pty LTD" - Australian Business Number 66 092 197 129 - See[2] TimMU 09:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question I see about 10 sources in that article. Do they reference the article or not? Anomo 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference the article is not enough. The article needs footnotes. A footnote is a link between the end of a sentence and the listed source. None of the 10 sources were linked directly to the end of a sentence. I added footnoted fact to give you an example of how to footnote a sentence. Before this article is deleted, you may want to use the 10 sources in that article as footnotes to the facts listed in the article. However, make sure that the footnoted source supports the fact stated in the article. Also, there needs to be Wikipedia reliable sources. A person's web page may be reliable for some facts, but it usually is not Wikipedia reliable for most facts. If there is to be a Wikipedia Auforn article, then Auforn needs to get its history in a newspaper such as those in the List of newspapers in Australia and/or perhaps a book. I think a main problem is that Auforn itself has no interest in promoting its own history. Take a look at the Auforn website. Even they do not have a history of the Auforn organization. If an Auforn article can be created in the future, one reason to send that new article to AfD would be that the organization does not want its history publicized. -- Jreferee 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG I looked around the net on on some web page and it seems that auforn is more of a 'voice piece' contact point for these two people that is about all, not that important.