Talk:Australia: Latrobe Valley historical societies ask for greater funding in budget submissions

Notes

Watched the meeting live on YouTube. The relevant section begins at about 19:30. I took some notes during the meeting which are provided below. Johnson's written submission is on page 18 of the written document, but there's also relevant information on how the meeting came to be called on pages 6 and 7.

6 historical societies in latrobe meet quarterly, in March motion came forward. Council has supported societies with $500 for administrative purpose, hasn't changed since amalgamation. Repository of information, needs to remain alive and viable. Asking for the grant to be increased. Communication has increased over past few years, postage has doubled. Societies gone electronic, software, domain names need updating as well as website development. Traralgon tagging of equipment costs +$250. Each society has made changes, Traralgon reduced bulletin leading to reduced income from businesses in the town.We're here because of those that come before us. We're creating the history of tomorrow. Cr Harriman asked for clarification that the increase would be $3000.

--LivelyRatification (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability

Does this pass WN:CARCRASH? To me it seems like a very routine case of local budget matters, not exactly something anyone outsde of Latrobe Valley...or indeed affiliated with the historical societies would have interest in. And considering one of my previous articles was rejected for being "just a routine IT thing", even though it was actually covered by both The Guardian and the BBC, idk if this makes the cut, OR or not. --JJLiu112 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I realise Wikinews:Newsworthiness says "we may cover events — either local or global — with little or no previous mainstream coverage", but still "[o]ur main criterion for whether an event is suitable for coverage is that it should be newsworthy". There is also that I'm not sure three pages published/made by the city council may not be considered "Cite at least two independent sources", though maybe OR overrides that. Not sure. --JJLiu112 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd think it would pass WN:CARCRASH, given some of the examples cited. You're correct in that it is pretty routine budget matters, but I'd say it's similar to "a minor traffic collision of the sort that might grace the pages of a local paper". OR would override the two independent sources, I'd think. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, given some of the examples cited in WN:CARCRASH. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, at the same time I don't believe it actually did grace any local papers. Nonetheless, sure. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked but that is a fair point. Simultaneously, I do still think it's newsworthy, because these sorts of council affairs are relevant on the local level, and in my view it passes the bar of being about as notable as a minor car crash. --LivelyRatification (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
That article, JJ, was a anti-phishing drill; comparable to fire drill. Which by itself is not out of the ordinary, unlike council meetings. I am aware how MSM likes to blow the dimensions of these for painting the dangers of technology, such drills don't pass the newsworthiness by itself. Had there been, say an actual fire during the drill, that is instantly newsworthy, but a periodic drill, sadly not too much.
•–• 19:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4621269 [Passed]

Revision 4621269 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: @LivelyRatification: Thanks for the article. I don't think this qualifies as an OR, it is a {{broadcast report}}. Which made the situation of two mutually Independent sources a bit of concern -- given such broadcasts and primary source of contact are sufficient to write an article about it; that problem is mitigated. I could not find one quote -- apart from that, everything else was okay. Thank you for covering local news! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4621269 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: @LivelyRatification: Thanks for the article. I don't think this qualifies as an OR, it is a {{broadcast report}}. Which made the situation of two mutually Independent sources a bit of concern -- given such broadcasts and primary source of contact are sufficient to write an article about it; that problem is mitigated. I could not find one quote -- apart from that, everything else was okay. Thank you for covering local news! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Thanks! Wasn't entirely sure what to file it under. In future, I'll put similar content under the broadcast report category. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)