Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convergence Review

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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convergence Review

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

No sourced evidence of the significance of this review despite the unsourced statement that it was significant in the article. The few secondary sources on this review indicate that it didn't have any lasting consequences and none of its recommendations were adopted. Most of the coverage is from the government agencies involved. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonably sourced stub on an Australian government policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep' Received significant coverage when it was released (the Australian media loves to report on itself). That it didn't have long-term consequences isn't terribly relevant. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Sydney Morning Herald [1] and the West Australian [2] both described it as the "long awaited" Convergence Review. I think that can be reasonably interpreted as being "significant". And the point to keep in mind is as Nick-D suggested, the review gained significant coverage when it was released.-Keepdry (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, there was significant, if not lasting coverage of the review. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (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.