Search

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Oceania. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Oceania|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Oceania.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates

Lisa Filipetto

Lisa Filipetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The 2 sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackay Radio

Mackay Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. The link http://www.mackayhistory.com/ doesn’t exist anymore. Wikilover3509 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original editor was blocked with a mile-long talk page of warnings; this seems to be an article about stations in Mackay, Queensland, but this article seems to have been both pay-to-play from a sockmaster who never visited Australia, and completely unintelligible (it previously also had a duplicative entry about Clarence Mackay). No redirect. Nate • (chatter) 17:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not entirely sure whether this article, such as it is, is about an American company or about Australian radio stations… and I'm not sure the article knows either. This has been tagged as a potential WP:CORP failure since July 2021 (only a month after creation); if there is any solution to this that doesn't involve deletion, I'm not seeing it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links (it took me a while to catch that, despite my earlier comment here). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without even going into suspect bona fides of the page’s author, and putting best spin on page’s intent, which is to serve as a list of Mackay Radio stations, then still fails WP:STANDALONE. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charli Evans

AfDs for this article:
Charli Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT. No reliable sources in the article or online. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing found about this person, sourcing is largely match reports in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: (Keep) She is one of the most popular active female Australian wrestlers and a pioneer of Pro-Wrestling: EVE. Has worked for companies from three different continents and is accomplished. As for the sourcing, the article includes links to trustworthy sites such as fightful.com, voicesofwrestling.com, Squared Circle Sirens, Diva Dirt or Last Word on Pro Wrestling. They might not point her name out, but they clearly demonstrate her work. There also exist several interviews with her from YahooSports and WrestleSports. Unfortunately I didn't include them since they are only audio work. I think the article meets the notability criterias and also has a WikiData correspondent (item Q126186302), therefore I strongly believe that it should remain on the mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyReydar97 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    keep Charli Evans is a major figure in the UK indie wrestling scene. Bigkhrisdogg (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any sources that contribute towards establishing notability? - GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Polly

Princess Polly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested G11. This appears to have been written by a UPE and reads like an advertisement. All of the coverage I can find is run of the mill. Even if notable, G11 is appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of notable references to this company that could be included in this page as it meets the WP:NCORP. Including the sources noted by Liance, Ragtrader which speaks to both positive and negative market fluctuations of the parent company, IT News discussing a data breach, and BBC article with Lori Loughlin scandal. Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikiguru777 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ragtrader has no clear editorial policy, the article you've cited is run-of-the-mill reporting about stores opening, and trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP. IT News is likewise a run-of-the-mill data breach story in a trade publication, and does not establish that the company is notable. The BBC article contains only this brief mention of the brand: "The social media influencer has launched a clothing collection with women's online fashion boutique Princess Polly and a make-up palette with cosmetics chain Sephora." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
plenty of notable references to this company: for a company to be notable under NCORP, there needs to be more than "references"; there needs to be several sources, each of which must be secondary, independent, and reliable, and contain significant coverage of the company.
Regarding: Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikipedia's readers are not an audience for advertising to. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP" I can see that featured trade stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear. Reporting on net revenue decrease and factual store openings is unbiased, independent information. Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article.
In addition, I've also found the BBB review / complaints for the company (where reviews must be independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject).
Another article with substantial, reliable, and independent coverage from a secondary source relating to news article exploring sustainability of the company - Greenmatters - https://www.greenmatters.com/p/is-princess-polly-good-quality
Agree that the BBC article I previously referenced does not meet the criteria for notable source. Wikiguru777 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBB complaints are user-generated content and thus not reliable.
  • Greenmatters appears to be reliable and its critique of the company's claims of being ethical while sourcing from "countries with extreme risk of label abuse" indicates this definitely isn't a sponsored post.
  • Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article. References or mentions are not enough to establish notability. The article also isn't about this company; it's about the parent company's IPO.
voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Carlton Crew

The Carlton Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:V - Verifiability: This article contains almost no sourcing. Information present is unreliable and a lot of it seems to have been added in contravention of WP:NOR. Has been this way for 14 odd years judging by the article.

WP:ORG - Notability: The article does not meet the Notability guidelines for criminal organisations due to insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources.

Overall almost none of the information in this article is verifiable, and that is which is verifiable is not notable enough to warrant an article. I considered removing the unverified content, but that which would remain does not seem substantive enough. Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. There seem to be plenty of sources on this group. That they aren't in the page is unrelated to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford

Simon Hansford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faaimata Hiliau

Faaimata Hiliau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately I don't see how this meets WP:BASIC. The only independent article that offers WP:SIGCOV is this one by The Sydney Morning Herald. The two ([1] [2]) magazine articles by the Uniting Church are not independent and don't count towards notability. C F A 💬 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per GNG. There were already 2 independent sources with SMH and compass, and Cielquiparle has added 2 more.
Newystats (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She seems to be notable but the references am not sure could have given her a keep.--Meligirl5 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (2025 film)

Alex (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a planned film, apparently created by its director, hasn't actually begun filming yet, zero coverage so far outside of two posts on director's YouTube channel. Moved to draft three times, where it was correctly declined once as failing WP:NFILM. My speedy A7 was declined in favour of a third move back to draft, but article creator moved it back to main space minutes later, so here we are. Wikishovel (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also keeps removing COI templates despite doing nothing to actually resolve it, although seems like they've stopped for now. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Self-promotional and non-notable. Creator has already been blocked. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Beach, New South Wales

Lighthouse Beach, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since nobody has found a reliable source in over 10 years, there likely won't be any more sources. I couldn't find any sources either. EternalNub (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:PROD would have been good for this. Australia has lots of beaches, without sources Delete Reywas92Talk 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Struck per HEY Reywas92Talk 16:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty of sources available, and it's a WP:GEOFEAT so doesn't need to specifically clear the GNG bar: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Needs adoption, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added several references, an infobox, and prose to the article. (I've left the "doesn't meet GNG" box up until this AfD is closed - if the closer could please remove it.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have also added a few sources. Expect more could be done on the shark attack aspect by those with access to better Australian sources than I. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko Gear

AfDs for this article:
Gecko Gear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest? B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nothing has changed since last AfD. The current sources are enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?
    We already have three sources that pass NCORP. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it fails ORGIND... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably spent way too much time on this, but whatever. Not sure what the third source that passed NCORP was. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
SourceIndependent?Reliable?Significant coverage?Secondary?Overall value toward ORGCRIT
"Macworld Australia Staff" (20 October 2010). "Australian iPod, iPad and iPhone accessory maker Gecko Gear announces attendance at CES 2011". Macworld Australia. Archived from the original on 2018-04-17. This is a press release. Two ways to tell. Well, three if we count the fact that it's obviously a press release from the content.– Not really applicable–
Barker, Garry (8 June 2011). "What's the best case scenario?". Brisbane Times.

Also found in The Sydney Morning Herald andThe Age (PQ 870699777 TWL link, can't find a FUTON copy)

 – Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make.
Foo, Fran (14 August 2010). "Gecko Gear makes the case for quality iPhone accessories". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2010-11-24. Pretty much entirely quotes. Probably should be analysed under TRADES tbh.–– At least it's actually vaguely about the subject?
Barker, Gary (29 January 2007). "Lifestyle accessories turn the world into iPod's oyster". The Age.–– Besides being a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating?–
Barker, Gary (28 Apr 2011) "Shape of Apples to come: mac man" The Age PQ 865591170 TWL–– There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company)–
I think that's about it, unless someone wants to start digging through the dead tree copies of the Australian MacWorld and stuff. I don't see the point frankly, I find it extremely unlikely there exists anything meeting ORGCRIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors wanting to Keep this article should try to rebut the source analysis presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to change my !vote to neutral. I'm not entirely convinced that Barker and Foo don't demonstrate original opinion, but it is indeed too little. Both only count partially, so that isn't a good case for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me put two additional arguments to you. First, the topic of this article is the *company* but the Barker article is about the Ipad2 cover and based entirely on an interview with the founder. Second, references don't count "partially" - we don't aggregate 10 (or whatever number you choose) sources that fail NCORP and determine that there's "enough" therefore to meet the criteria for establishing notability - see WP:SIRS which governs how to evaluate each source and says each individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking was that the SIGCOV part is extremely shaky, so it counts partially. If it fails IND, then it's just a fail. Barker has a paragraph of individual analysis, but that is indeed just a single, tiny paragraph that happens to not be a trivial mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As the chart shows, none of the sources are useful for notability in 2024... Beyond mentions of hte company, I still don't see extensive sourcing we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:
Salman Muqtadir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [10] and [11] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Adamson

AfDs for this article:
Margaret Adamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Burke (musician)

Rick Burke (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(PROD declined with no explanation) Fails WP:MUSICBIO. What little coverage I can find featuring this person's name is about his bands, not Burke himself Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This page we should keep given that the musician written about has a long-term and ongoing authentic discography as cited on reliable archival / data sites such as Discogs with news features on various media outlets. If for some reason it is a problem for the information to be listed under “Rick Burke (musician)”, I would strongly recommend that rather than deleting the article on superfluous grounds, the content should be split into 2 pages: one for “Comacozer” and one for “Tropical Sludge” with a redirect from the original “Rick Burke (musician)” page. In saying that, it does not make sense to split the information into several pages therefore it should be retained as one to keep the information tidy on Wikipedia. NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NEXUS6N6MAA10816 Having a long-term and ongoing authentic discography does not count towards inclusion in Wikipedia. With regard to your suggestion the article be split, there is not enough content about those bands for one to be viable. Mach61 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mach61, thanks for your kind suggestions. The article is important as it streamlines information on Rick Burke which people actively search for on the internet within the context of "Underground Music" (see Wiki entry for this) and fits into the scope of "WikiProject Music". Associated acts such as Kikagaku Moyo, Electric Wizard, It's Psychedelic Baby and so on have existing entries on Wikipedia and this article will complete a missing part of that academic puzzle as it increasingly gets fleshed out as a public document. Best wishes. NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NEXUS6N6MAA10816 I see no indication Burke is connected to any of those people, and even if he were that would be irrelevant (see WP:notability is not inherited. Mach61 15:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Tasmanian state election

2028 Tasmanian state election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoris talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?
    Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPathtalk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every other state/territory had their "next election" page created shortly after the last, however agree with @AveryTheComrade it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPathtalk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters

List of Australian Open broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Delete After some due research within the scope of the Australian Open, I have come to the conclusion that as a list, the topic fails WP:LISTN, but as a prose, it has more potential as its own article. If the closer determines that, then I would suggest that we consider moving this article to just be History of Australian Open broadcasts, remove the WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR, and keep the sources that actually commit notability to this topic. Conyo14 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg

Uzma Beg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]
It's not a matter of whether I like a source or not. It's obvious that the sources are clearly not reliable, no even for WP:V purpose. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In looking at the original article and the SPA creation & editing of this article, as well as other articles that mention the subject, it is likely this is an autobiography. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trentham Football Netball Club

Trentham Football Netball Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source in article and BEFORE are database records, game recaps, routine local mill news, and name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if indepth sources addressing the subject directly meeting WP:SIRS are found.  // Timothy :: talk  17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, here is a link to the official history book of the Australian Rules football club, Trentham Football / Netball Club in Victoria, Australia - https://trenthamsaintsfnc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/TDFNC-The-First-100-Years-by-Vin-Cowell.pdf which should provide you with a good source for you add in any other citations for verification, addressing your concerns. Thanks, Justin. Justin J. Kelly (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the sources are mainly local, same with a google news search, needs wider coverage as per WP:AUD. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @LibStar: What's wrong with the book-length source on its history listed above? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I can tell it is self-published by a relative of a former player? Not sure if it qualifies for meeting the WP:ORG. Let'srun (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League. I agree with LetsRun’s characterization of the earlier source brought up. It lacks independence and even if it was independent, it wouldn’t be enough on its own (plus the WP:ROUTINE local coverage currently in the article). Frank Anchor 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A decent article here on "Trentham's Glory Years". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for posting a link to that great article about the Trentham FNC to help try and maintain some of the club's valuable football and netball history. Justin J. Kelly (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if some consensus on an outcome can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League as an AtD. I'm likewise not impressed with the applied, presented or found sourcing, none of which meets RS. Redirect protects full page history. Some of these articles are insufficiently sourced to avoid deletion process tests. BusterD (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BusterD: What's wrong with this source? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would classify it as "small beer." It's difficult for me to take seriously an interview with a "legendary" somebody who recalls successfully playing minor league football in a small Victoria town sixty years ago (a "legendary" but non-notable figure in a village of almost 1,200 dwellers!), I see nothing which demonstrates this team any more notable than any of the other entries on the league article which don't have pages about them. I see nothing significant and independent which actually shows the club exists as of this datestamp. If I stipulate the team exists, I'm forced to add there's not enough direct detailing to make this team meet WP:NTEAM (these days GNG) to rate an article on English Wikipedia. Not all local amateur sports teams are notable. The BURDEN is on those asserting keep. I assert page supporters haven't met their burden. I am arguing for a redirect outcome so that when sufficient sources ARE found, page supporters can just improve the page without hassle. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations

The following Australian-related articles are currently Proposed for Deletion:



Australia-related Miscellany for deletion

The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

Australia-related Templates for Deletion

The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

Australia-related Categories for Discussion

The following Australian-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_9#Category:Extinct_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia

Australia-related Deletion Review

The following Australian-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:

None at present


New Zealand

May Gilbert

May Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:ARTIST. Only 1 article links to this. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otago NORML

Otago NORML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are either regional publication (mainly the Otago Daily Times), university newspapers (Critic Te Arohi) and primary-sourced YouTube video. I only see two national sources. The first I can't access, and the second is a mention of a cannabis museum but does not go into detail. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd give the ODT more credit than being a regional publication; it's the major newspaper covering Otago. Yes, that is a region, but you could also argue the same for The Press in Christchurch, and I would also disagree with that thinking. The sustained ODT coverage brings this over the general notability line for me. Schwede66 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the ODT and One News coverage clearly establishes notability imo. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are not 'more' sources available, but the existing ones establish the subject's notability. For example, the Critic here, establish GNG. Others include Otago Times here among others. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Critic Te Ārohi established notability as it is a student newspaper of Otago University. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSSM applies here: given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions — HTGS (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed with comments above. ODT establishes notability. Student newspapers are prone to inaccuracy and errors but I suppose they might be used in this context. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect to NORML New Zealand) as lacking significant non-trivial coverage. I don’t think the ODT is an unreliable source, nor do I think regional papers should be looked down on (technically all of NZ’s printed newspapers are regional), but most of the “coverage” in the article is very sparse, and neither the ODT nor the One News sources represent non-trivial coverage of the org itself, so much as coverage of various events and people where the org was mentioned (per WP:SIGCOV example on Clinton’s high school band). I have the impression the org is currently defunct or inactive. Thanks Panamitsu, I have been meaning to nominate this article for a while. — HTGS (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the discussion of Otago Daily Times is relevant; WP:BRANCH is extremely clear that "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Every source in this article, and every source I could find in a BEFORE search, is either local to the Dunedin area or to the university itself. (The only non-local source is really about Abe Gray and a museum, not sigcov of Otago NORML.) I would encourage other editors and participants here to engage with the WP:BRANCH criteria here, since WP:ORGCRIT establishes a higher standard than WP:GNG for organizations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Labrum

Bronwyn Labrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does she meet WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Harris (artist)

Claire Harris (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable artist. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think any of the sources establish notability per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Holloway-Smith

Bronwyn Holloway-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to lack of secondary sourcing. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the sources do not establish notability as per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs some work but the subject is definitely notable. TheSwamphen (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how the subject meets notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through all of the sources, and don't see how this could meet WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Downard-Wilke

AfDs for this article:
Axel Downard-Wilke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Downard-Wilke does not meet our notability guidelines for people, with very little (if any) independent sourcing. See the first nomination which was speedy kept as it was linked from the main page's DYK section. It was promptly removed after the COIN case was brought up. To me this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. wound theology◈ 08:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Germany, and New Zealand. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on encountering what I consider significant coverage in two profiles [12] (in this one he is rendered as "Wilke" rather than "Downard-Wilke") and [13]. This combined with the less significant but also more than trivial coverage across sources cited in the article leads me to consider the topic notable. I'm also perplexed by the OP's comment that this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. This article wasn't created or edited by its subject (who would be the "self" in self-promotion); the COIN case is about someone who knows Downard-Wilke interpersonally having contributed to the article. Downard-Wilke, who is disclosed to be Schwede66 on Wikipedia, has never edited this article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really want to go too deep into source debates for reasons stated in my comments below, but you might want to read my original nomination statement from the first AfD – certainly that first Stuff article you linked is not an independent source. It was written to promote this edit-a-thon to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stuff itself, which Downard-Wilke appears to have played some role in organising. This does call into question more broadly whether Stuff articles can be considered independent of Downard-Wilke.
    The apparent less significant but also more than trivial coverage you refer to I believe amounts to a notability bomb when carefully investigated – although there are many sources, none turn out to contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not self-promotion but it is a prolific DYK contributor being asked to make an article about a prominent Wikipedian and get it on the front page. Obviously we don't know who did the asking. It all stinks, anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original AfD nominator here. I think this follow-up AfD is slightly premature. There is an evolving discussion underway at COIN, where Schwede66 has mentioned a cache of 50-odd potential sources for review. It would be better to take some time to properly go over these sources before going straight back to AfD. Plus, this way interested participants would not have to split their energy between content and conduct discussions, and so we can get all the facts right about the circumstances behind the article's creation (for example, I agree with Hydrangeans that calling it "self-promotion", given what we know right now, is tenuous because Schwede66 hasn't touched the article).
As it stands I would prefer this be suspended or closed procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination once other discussions have taken their course and Schwede66's sources been thoroughly reviewed. – Teratix ₵ 15:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Echoing the two previous comments. I feel this AFD is a bit rushed, and I don't see reasons why it may be labelled as self-promotion yet. X (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is clearly determined by multiple reliable news articles on the subject from The Star and Stuff. Both outlets are reliable independent sources in New Zealand. Before anyone questions whether I have a CoI, I have met Axel once in an online Wikipedia meetup call, and all of my interactions with him have been on and about Wikipedia. However, outside of Wikipedia I have heard his name mentioned in several places related to urban planning in Christchurch. He is certainly a notable figure in this city, and I also consider him notable enough for a wikipedia article.
David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Teratix pointed out, the Stuff article is not an independent source. Not sure about The Star. wound theology◈ 06:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other Stuff articles that establish notability, particularly on the macron debate. Believe it or not that was newsworthy in NZ. When I tell people I edit Wikipedia, people ask me about that specific topic. Wilke was a fairly central figure in the coverage of that debate., as established by the sources. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a prolific contributor surely has achieved enough notoriety to deserve an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep at this time - on the surface appears to just meet WP:GNG. This does seem like it is better to be reviewed at COIN in the first instance and improve things from there, and a renomination can be done after that process is complete. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now had a chance to properly review Schwede66's sources and they have changed my opinion on the matter – I believe there is enough independent coverage from reliable sources to keep the article. (Critically, at the time of my original AfD nomination I had not seen either of the sources I view as demonstrating notability). That is not to say it will not need significant attention (about 40% of its citations are to non-independent sources, suggesting in its current state undue weight may be placed on certain aspects), but it passes our basic notability test. As for the particular sources demonstrating notability:
  • Although I do not believe the 2020 Stuff article is independent because it appears to have been written to promote an edit-a-thon on the company, on reflection I do not think this judgement of non-independence should necessarily extend to an article on a different issue written by different authors two years later, even if it is the same outlet. Although the article is chiefly about the macrons debate itself, there is some decent coverage of Downard-Wilke and his actions, enough to contribute to passing GNG/NBIO.
  • I mentioned source 6, a piece from The Star about his regional council campaign, in my original AfD nomination as difficult to verify (unavailable online) but unlikely to contribute to notability given various reasonable inferences from its context of production. However, Schwede66 had a copy of the article and it turned out to be a bit more substantial than I expected, providing just enough depth and context I believe it contributes to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anotopterus sp. (2008)

Anotopterus sp. (2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't a real fish.

The article cites only one reference, and it's a dead URL. However, an archived version of it does exist on the Wayback Machine:

...And nowhere in the archived source does it say it's a new species. Nor are there any papers from around that time period on Google Scholar about the discovery of a new, as-of-yet-undescribed species of Anotopterus. In fact, the picture given in the article/source is identical to the one FishBase uses for Anotopterus vorax, which already has a page.

Please nuke this page from orbit. It's 16 years overdue.

— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An editor read the cited article and erroneously though it was an undescribed species, when it was a specimen of Anotopterus vorax. Nurg (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, see above comment. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I was led by an online news article (secondary source) to believe it was one of the species discovered by the team that wrote the PDF (primary source) linked here. This is a prime example of why secondary sources are less trustworthy than primary. I'm actually amused at my naive mistake here, since I would have written that stub a few years before I was introduced to actual scientific journal articles. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Sakaria

Vincent Sakaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keepa Mewett

Keepa Mewett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though I was initially leaning toward a delete some research shows the BoP Times profile, and other articles about being selected to play internationally as part of the Māori All Blacks. Its thin but I think it is enough. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He captained the Bay of Plenty side and played for the Māori All Blacks. As well as the Bay of Plenty Times profile, there is this profile from the Manawatu Standard during his stint playing for Manawatū, and this podcast that profiles his life journey. Paora (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Categories / Templates / etc

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

A list of prodded articles with {{WikiProject New Zealand}} tags can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts#Alerts.

Elsewhere in Oceania

Soane Asi

Soane Asi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find references on Google. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only reliable information for him is on this ESPN page, that provides a mediocre amount of information. Other than that I couldn't find any reliable sources on him. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found some more information KoreanDragon (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: ESPN is about the extent of coverage. Some unrelated linkedin posts, nothing else for notability I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Linkedin profile stated that it was him, as seen in the info.
    "My name is Soane Asi being working as Lab Technician for Winstone for 23 years migrates from the Kingdom of Tonga 1987 after the very first Rugby World Cup where I represent Tonga I play as an Utility Backs from 2nd Five eight to Full Back but I play my first game on wing against Canada.
    Back Home I work for the ministry of Works as a Technical Officers for 8 years. Graduate with a Civil Engineering Diploma on Road Constructions 2 years Study on Ministry of Works Courses." KoreanDragon (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players Some sourcing exists, but difficult to judge whether it would pass WP:GNG with offline coverage, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua

Sione Fonua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I had a good dig and didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. I have a feeling given his post-rugby career in law and Tongan politics there might be good sources in the Tongan language, but I wasn't able to unearth any. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is credible a good impact of this article. Though it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and the sources were few of database results. I am quite certain that the article individual exists and has been covered in little coverage this, and others. A redirect/draftify should work better here against deletion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lotu Filipine

Lotu Filipine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Only one brief article exists [here https://www.looptonga.com/business/lotu-filipine-wins-500-cash-digicel-tonga-easter-promotion-91903], which is not enough. Shinadamina (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article I linked to, is not even about his career and may not be him. Shinadamina (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a sexual harassment incident when he was captain of the Tonga under-21 team [14]. There should be more on this, but it would require digging in NewzText, which I don't have access to. IdiotSavant (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep World Cup player and a simple search is bringing up WP:GNG passing coverage. There is likely more coverage offline also from the time of his career and locations of his playing career. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

Retrieved from "https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Oceania&oldid=1225929460"
🔥 Top keywords: Main PageSpecial:SearchWikipedia:Featured picturesYasukeHarrison ButkerRobert FicoBridgertonCleopatraDeaths in 2024Joyce VincentXXXTentacionHank AdamsIt Ends with UsYouTubeNew Caledonia2024 Indian general electionHeeramandiDarren DutchyshenSlovakiaKingdom of the Planet of the ApesAttempted assassination of Robert FicoLawrence WongBaby ReindeerXXX: Return of Xander CageThelma HoustonFuriosa: A Mad Max SagaMegalopolis (film)Richard GaddKepler's SupernovaWicked (musical)Sunil ChhetriXXX (2002 film)Ashley MadisonAnya Taylor-JoyPlanet of the ApesNava MauYoung SheldonPortal:Current eventsX-Men '97