This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. 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:
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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} 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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Australia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
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.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Hello, thank you for your comment. The person is a politician holding the office of head of a notable international organization, which is an international office. Under the notability guidelines, "Politicians...who have held international.. office" are presumed to be notable. Further, all other heads of international organizations based in Vienna are considered notable and have dedicated articles, many with similar or lower levels of coverage in third-party media. Your feedback on the level of coverage is noted, and a further five third-party media sources have been added to the article based on your feedback to demonstrate significant reliable coverage.
As noted in the article sources, while he was not a politician in Australia he was elected to his position as Executive Secretary, which is a political office at an international organization. Further, his candidacy was put forward by the Australian Government, as a political appointment. Ffe9 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is indeed a little different. It seems the links for diplomats, by the very nature of their wok, are not necessarily found in the usual news items, etc. For instance: Diplomats Gather in Annecy France for NPT Workshop. Before you dismiss him as just a diplomat, you might want to read his article Career section. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization is most certainly a notable office! I do concede that the coverage has all come after he assumed this position, with a news spike in mid 2021. A case could be made for WP:ONEEVENT, however noting the sufficient WP:DEPTH provided particular by the Sydney Morning Herald article and articles from 2023 showing some ongoing interest, I feel he is sufficently notable for an article. Dfadden (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Publications from his past life as a research scientist can be found under "Robert B. Floyd" [1], I think (at least they are in ecology by a Robert Floyd at CSIRO). They are well cited for the topic but I think do not contribute to WP:PROF notability; it is through his nuclear non-proliferation work that we must seek notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previous nominated and deleted. It was then recreated. However the issue still seems to be there. Cannot find independent significant coverage about the person himself to indicate he is anything more than a run-of-the-MILL CEO. ImcdcContact06:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current first grade player in one of the top tier rugby league competitions (NRL) at the start of his career. I found some coverage. [2], [3], [4]. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the interest of completeness, I wanted to point out that the first nomination from 2009 was for an article on a different Jamie Humphreys (an author) than the rugby league footballer that is the current subject. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch☎✎03:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's up for elections, & has been hiding this information that has recently come out in the press. She has, in fact, been campaigning on the exact opposite of what is the truth ie presenting herself as a renter when really owning multiple multi-million dollar properties in multiple countries. How is this not notable enough to keep? This information absolutely should be out in the public. Did she propose it for deletion? ExpertEgeo (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a candidate in the federal election is about your platform and how you identify yourself.
Amelia Hamer has identified herself as a renter that understands first hand the struggle of making rent each week.
News has found out that Hamer actually owns two properties for herself invalidating her claim that she is a 'renter'.
I think its fair to allow the reader on wikipedia read what information or 'political commentary' that she has offered and then have a counter-claim with a highly regarded piece of investigative journalism. A statement of fact is not political commentary as Amelia Hamer is indeed a landlord who owns two properties as provided by her in The Age article. 128.250.0.193 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That she may or may not have been hiding something which would hurt her election campaign is irrelevant. The only thing of any relevance is whether she satisfies our notability guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk10:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, this article must remain regardless of whether Ms Hamer wins or loses the 2025 Australian federal election. Deletion of this article is not acceptable. Unskathd (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is enough coverage to pass. The press articles about her are more focused and organic than the usual election candidate announcements, statements or press releases. She is seen as a "high profile" candidate. Mekomo (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DraftifyDelete: All of the coverage is in relation to her being a political candidate, which is insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Even the landlord stuff is in relation to her being a political candidate. If she wasn't a candidate then we would have no idea about the landlord stuff because it wouldn't be reported on because she is not notable. She may or may not be successful in the 2025 Australian federal election which is a little bit less than a month away. Therefore as a WP:ATD I suggest moving to draft. If she gets elected the article can move back to mainspace and if she is unsuccessful then it doesn't come back unless there is in depth coverage of her in secondary reliable sources, which are independent, for something else other than her being a political candidate. Given the proximity to the federal election I had thought that perhaps this should be sent to draft, however GraziePrego has informed me below that a superior version exists in draft. TarnishedPathtalk09:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that draft does not include the most notable information about her, namely that she campaigned on a platform of being a renter and was then discovered to be a landlord owning multiple properties around the world. 121.45.42.90 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the draft can be copied into the existing page as the current page is already GNG passing with existing sources. Content discussion in this case has nothing to do with what should be a speedy keep decision. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She campaigned as a political candidate. End of story. Political candidates aren't notable just for being political candidates. Take away the reporting about them being a political candidate and there's nothing. TarnishedPathtalk00:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The coverage of her political gaff, with her Paltering & Lying by omission about her trying to connect with millennials and youth voters by describing herself as a "renter", while leaving out the fact she has real estate interests in the UK & Australia worth roughly $2 million AUD that she is renting out, is more than enough to satisfy GNG. NPOL is irrelevant. The Guardian, SBS & Nine News stories about her renter lie scandal are significant coverage, from a reliable source indecent of the subject, as is the Cherwell article about being removed as Oxford Student editor (this may feel irrelevant to some people, but it is clearly a GNG passing source). A quick google search found additional GNG passing sources, not that it needs them, because it already passes GNG. The quality of the article is irrelevant to a deletion discussion. This should be a Reason 3 WP:Speedy Keep as this nomination is completely erroneous. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Normally just being a candidate doesn't pass notability, but the "renter" thing added to being a candidate makes her notable. Newystats (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being a landlord isn't notable and neither are having scandalous nude photos or allegations of cheating in school. Non-notable political candidate otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So she's a non-notable political candidate, you pull out that coverage, there is nothing left. Running for office isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. All verified, trusted and reputable information regarding Ms Hamer can remain on this article. Anything unverified and untrusted can be edited out. This article regarding Ms Hamer is NOT to be deleted. Unskathd (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have requested a speedy deletion. The article (and all its previous versions) contain contentious/ libellous info that is unsourced about a living person and active politician. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We silently EC'd on this. I also declined the speedy and removed the silly claim of the nude image. The article needs better sources and some editing, though. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "nude photo" was her with a group of other Uni students, all covered up by newspapers sitting on a couch. There is an article about it from the (barely reliable) Herald Sun behind their paywall if anyone cares that much about it. I know I don't. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. This article is NOT to be deleted. Ms Hamer is currently standing for Australian election, and all currently verified and substantiated news and information regarding Ms Hamer must remain here. This is not up for negotiation. Unskathd (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's longstanding convention on wikipedia that a unelected candidate is not notable and routine coverage received during the election cycle does not count towards GNG. I say this as someone who !voted keep for the same reasons you did in the first deletion discussion. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO, in the section regarding NPOL, specifically mentions that candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". The subject here does, as they have received multiple pieces of significant coverage. The supposed "convention" regarding NPOL is WP:OTHER and irrelevant to GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first discussion is in the past. We're talking about the page as it is now with multiple sources of reliable independent sigcov. Your second link is an irrelevant essay & essays do not represent consensus. Once again there is confusion over the lack of "presumptive notability" for unelected candidates in general, with the notability conferred by passing WP:GNG as an individual subject. Amelia may lose her election and never win an office covered by NPOL but she will still be notable enough to have an article under GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is someone with significant clout, power & money behind her election campaign, which she is running on the basis of sheer lies. Wikipedia is usually the first source of information for people, and I would say it is in the interest of the general public in light of the upcoming elections that this article be left online. ExpertEgeo (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing for notability then, a person running for office is also common, you can replace this name with any other. There is no claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At least until after the election, as her candidacy contains misinformation that this article corrects, and should be in the public view.
Keep - Article appears to meet GNG and NPOL (even if the latter is, as I would argue, less relevant due to GNG being met so fully). KwanFlakes (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is whether Amelia Hamer (the person) meets WP:GNG, which has not much to do with the content of either the draft or the article. (The draft or article may demonstrate that she meets the GNG, or it may not; her notability will not change if we delete either or both of draft and article). —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage to justify an article, including some older coverage (e.g. here). Additionally, none of the deletion arguments made here are sound e.g. whether or not Hamer has been elected isn't relevant. Cortador (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the general issue, but the articles in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are written by the same writer and (at least so far as I can see in the preview shown to me as a non-subscriber) are identical. They don't separately count towards GNG. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline states that merely being a candidate in and of itself is not notable (in the guideline's words, "presumptive notability"). However, candidates like Hamer that have stories devoted to them in every major newspaper and TV channel in Australia are notable. Or are you arguing that they don't meet WP:GNG? Jpatokal (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you do agree that the sources meet WP:GNG, and are now advancing theories for why Hamer is not notable anyway?
And since you mention WP:BLP1E, one of the three prongs of that test is that person is a "low-profile individual", which Hamer clearly is not; the Guardian even explicitly calls her a "high-profile candidate". Jpatokal (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not already won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But the existence of some campaign coverage does not in and of itself translate into a "passes GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL" card — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would be rendered meaningless and unenforceable since no candidate would ever have to be measured against it at all. So candidates have to meet one of two tests: either (a) they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason, independently of their candidacy, that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) the campaign coverage demonstrates a credible reason why the person should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm, in some way that even if they lose the election they'd still pass the ten year test as a topic of enduring significance anyway (the Christine O'Donnell test). Neither of those have been demonstrated here, however. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are misconstruing WP:NPOL, which is designed to weed out small-town mayors and the like, and explicitly states that unelected candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline".
The three pillars of WP:GNG are 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable sources that are 3) independent of the subject. The average candidate does not have this; Hamer does. Jpatokal (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpatokal, I don't think it's WP:AGF to accuse someone of wilfully misconstruing guidelines. This is hardly Bearcat's first Wikipedia edit. You're also accusing TarnishedPath of "dodging the question" in the thread just above. There's no need for the temperature of this deletion discussion to be so high. GraziePrego (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GraziePrego Fair enough, I have deleted the word. Although I continue to be frustrated that WP:NPOL has been repeatedly trumpeted here as somehow overriding WP:GNG, when the guideline itself spells out that this is not the case. Jpatokal (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm in agreement most specifically with Bearcat and TarnishedPathta. I will note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hamer was to move to Draft Space which I frankly disagree with. We cannot allow Draft Space to become a series of campaign brochures that rear their heads prematurely every time someone wants to create negatively-toned pages about a candidate they oppose.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found enough reliable coverage from major Aussie outlets that talk about Alexandra Jakob directly, not just in passing. Articles in Domain, Sky News, The Australian, and RealEstate.com.au give detailed info about her role as a founder and investor. That’s more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. She’s clearly made a mark in the Australian business scene, and the coverage is both independent and significant. Pridemanty (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources presented in the article would make the subject notable including 1, 2 and 3. She also has covrage in DailyMail and DailyTelegraph, which I do not think are considered reliable, but yet the fact that she has coverage in these, shows that she is a notable person. RolandSimon (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the cited sources are in-depth enough to pass WP:NCORP, nor are they reliable to begin with. In my WP:BEFORE, I found nothing in Australian publications (not even a mention in reliable sources). Gheus (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was surprised just how little there is about this company — it seems to have had some moderate success, but hasn't attracted even a mention in the RS publications like the AFR that I would normally expect. All I could find were press releases and routine coverage in WP:TRADES publications. Don't see anything that could possibly count towards WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Messara. Apparently Arrowfield is a big operation and very well known in the industry, but everything is founded by John Messara and under the umbrella of "Arrowfield Group Limited" (ARF1), of which Messara is the chairman. There are a LOT of online articles mentioning Arrowfield Stud or -Group, mostly brief mentions as the breeder or owner of this or that horse, but Messara is the main star—searches for any of these names return many quotes by Messara from press inquiries and interviews. Messara seems well-known and well-reputed within the thoroughbred breeding and racing industries in Australia. Sample search results:
Arrowfield is also the sponsor of a race which has its own wiki-article: Arrowfield Stud Plate. "Arrowfield Stud" appears in 60 wiki articles, at least 18 of which wikilink directly to Arrowfield Stud. I couldn't find any comprehensive coverage on the stud itself except for articles interviewing Messara (interviews rank as primary sources) but that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I didn't find any. The John Messara article isn't too long that it couldn't host "Arrowfield" content and redirect all the company names to it. All of the related articles (including the stallion articles) have been edited by likely-COI editors and probably need cleaning up, not deleting. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article needs cleaned up and expanded with pertinent references. Just because they don't exist right now doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. If the trend is to start deleting articles just because they are stubs then the direction of notice should be for the project to consider improving it. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe so, but no new refs have been added to this article since 2013 and there have been many edits since, including editors who have questioned its notability and referencing issues (see here and [6] edit summaries) Do we keep it for another 12 years in the hope someone eventually fixes it? It also appears that the most recent active contributors may have a WP:COI and currently the only working reference is the farm's own website. My concerns are not just about notability but also about WP:PROMO.
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.
WP:BLP of a film editor, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for film editors. As always, film editors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they've had credits, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage in reliable sources about them and their work -- biographical coverage, external analysis of their work's impact, evidence of notability-conferring awards, etc. But this just states that he exists and lists a bunch of films without saying anything notability-building at all, and is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries without showing any GNG-worthy sourcing whatsoever. The fact that his work exists is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2025 (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.
KEEP: I do not know what the moderators, other editors would like. Australia is different to the US/UK - we do not have talk shows that discuss events. We have the news bulletins on television/radio and the newspapers. This is an on-going case and the comments section of any article about this (when opened) shows how outraged Australians are over this.
A young woman was taken, murdered, then her body dumped - Wikipedia has articles about a lot less. The trial, details of this are still yet to come; anticipating it to be a big trial with lots of information/evidence etc to be released (because we are in pre-trial stage so not everything is released - that would destroy the prosecutors case) someone took the initiative to start a page and start compiling the information and what because the Made for TV Movie isn't already being developed it's not enough for editors to warrant a page.
For the record there are other things happening in Australia as well; the Brisbane Olympic Games finally announced what they are doing, we had the Federal Budget handed down, we have an impending Election which is all taking up news time but because this isn't top story every night "WELP The world doesn't need to know about another woman killed by a man"? It's already a growing pandemic and you want to be part of hiding the numbers and sweeping stories about it under the rug?
This is an on-going case with numerous court cases to play out. There were articles posted today and there is outrage in Australia about this. Did you bother to attempt to search before deciding a case you have never heard of isn't worthy? Why because it's Australian? Do we have to tear buildings down or ensure it is the only thing anyone in the country can think about for it to be worthy of a wikipedia article.
Thought this of all places would be one you would need to fact check or resource check... guess not! Just list things for deletion we don't like... wait here I'll go get a list of pages I don't like and we can list them for deletion too. Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the reasons for nomination. Several articles discussed the event in the context of demonstrations opposing violence against women. It's more than just thing happened. I was able to find coverage in both Australian and UK sources, some of it from October 2024 and now March 2025. The multi-country scope and significant national coverage in Australia suggests notability to me as this is not an event just isolated to local news. I have added updates to the article with additional sources. A quick google news search turns up articles from October 2024 and March 2025, and please do due diligence commenting in favor of keep or delete. Coverage will likely continue as the full trial begins and I don't think the duration of coverage will be an issue long-term.
This one is borderline for me. Hassett (2024) looks like it gives coverage of the event as a notable example as opposed to news coverage. Roulston (2024) might indicate this as well, but it's a stretch. If there's a slightly more clear cut example of using this as a WP:CASESTUDY or becoming a go-to example in the literature, then it would be a definite keep. I'm not interested in coverage that might exist some day in the future (that's a fancy way of saying it doesn't exist), or continued breaking news coverage as it comes out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is still being used as an example of violence against women in Australia during coverage of anti-violence rallies in a newspaper of record: [7]. Uncertain if that will nudge minds in one way or another (I've added the reference to the article). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. The claim that all coverage in the sources is from November 2024 is false as a review of the article clearly shows. But please, no conspiracy theories, these type of crime articles regularly appear in AFD discussions and is not influenced by the location of the crime, the outcome is determined the coverage of the incident by reliable sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's an ongoing criminal court case. I'm not Australian but I suspect that there are similar regular reporting restrictions on legacy media during active criminal litigation as in the UK. Nothing we do here should impede the operation of a fair trial IMO, and there's no overwhelming reason why we need to write this story until all the court time is completed. JMWt (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reason to delete articles on wikipedia? Unless the information in the article is original research, all of the information is from third parties. Wikipedia isn't censored WP:UNCENSORED, and I'm not sure how this article would impede a fair trial. Is the argument here to delete any article as soon as there are related court cases? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well I don't want to try getting outside of my lane in terms of detailed knowledge about media law however the situation relating to reporting current legal cases in the UK (and likely Australia and other countries with similar legal systems) is different to America. Here, judges tell jurors that they should disregard anything they hear or read outside of the courtroom and the media can be in breach of the law - even for repeating "common knowledge" facts about the case whilst a trial is going on. It isn't about censorship, it's about respect for the legal system as it works in different jurisdictions.
As to your other point, I believe Wikipedia should be following the media rules of jurisdictions like other media, which may well involve removing pages from view if they include information that would not be published in other media during a criminal trial.
In this particular case I think that's getting into the weeds as it looks like there may only be a fairly short delay until the court case starts and hopefully concludes anyway. So there would likely be more material to write a better page in a few months anyhow. JMWt (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia should refrain from publishing material that wouldn't be published in any particular territory or country's media is an extreme minority view that goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. ꧁Zanahary꧂02:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this has a fair amount of coverage, and now has 17 sources some of which are news stories I have added. The case is quite infamous as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please re-review the article in light of the new sources that have been added to the content. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a current event (the trial), I'd say it's almost TOOSOON. This needs to happen and others to analyze it before we decide if it's notable. If the media is still talking about it in a year, we can revisit. I guess we could draft, but it would likely hang around and get deleted anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish him as a prominent figure within the financial industry. Furthermore, the content primarily focuses on specific legal cases without providing comprehensive context or wider recognition that meets Wikipedia's notability. Mapsama (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets notability guidelines - independent coverage in reliable sources, especially in relation to international financial investigations and whistleblower activity.
Mapley was a technical advisor to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, contributing to its 650-page report on the 2008 subprime crisis, highlighting Goldman Sachs’ misrepresentation of structured financial products.
The article avoids promotional content and focuses on well-documented, encyclopedic facts. Legal cases are not undue weight, but part of broader public interest and regulatory investigation coverage.
Delete: Article reads like a promotional handout or a linkedin write up for someone looking for work. This reads as an extended CV. None of the sourcing used is directly about this individual, rather, about other things and simply mentions this person. I don't find sourcing either that we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this is the same person [8], but it doesn't confirm... If he's been suspended for doing illegal things, that could be notable, but without further proof, I can't confirm. I don't see criminal notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
