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:
The article does not demonstrate the notability of this road. There are no references other than a Google Maps link. As a local suburban road I doubt it would be possible to demonstrate why this road is notable. – numbermaniac17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, there is no reason put forth for proposed deletion. Making it difficult to address it. Secondly, the subject of the page fulfills both WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people). It can be established by following WP:RS
Although, it might be of little bearing, however, the subject also has a page on French Wikipedia, initially, this page was started as a translation, however, the subject has more Reliable sources in English. RaynorRaider (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]] fail WP:SIGCOV because the subject appeared to be mere mentioned without any significant coverage. Again it fails GNG as it relies heavily on primary sources, self published materials, press releases and non independent coverage such as interviews, and articles published by platforms that lack editorial oversight. 102.91.93.26 (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt seem to be. Most references are either basically his University profile or a copy of that. Also some of the papers he published. Only notable thing is a SMH article about Magnetically directed drugs that mentions him. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently 10% of its members are fellows. Meaning 418 people, I dont think it counts as "highly selective". Unless all 418 members should have pages made Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds more like a regulatory body, if they handle CChem designations. You basically need this to exercise your trade, much like a medical license. That's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is the professional body aspect, but I was focusing on the learned society side, as the institute article states Election to Fellow of the institute ("FRACI") is dependent on a position of eminence, services rendered, academic honours, experience and status, creative achievement, responsibility and contribution to chemical science, and recommendation by the RACI Assessment Committee, which is more towards what we generally consider for that criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by a now-blocked WP:SOCK whose edit focus was on articles about this and a later venture by the company's founder. Xplor seems to have pivoted through payment services for several sectors during its independent existence, and again since its acquisition and a later further merger. The current announcement-based references fall under WP:CORPTRIV and searches find more recent announcements but not the coverage of the firm itself needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I am the author of this Wikipedia page. I note @S-Aura that you have nominated this page for deletion. I am curious to know why?
I would say that the article on Damien Costas clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, not just in passing.
These sources span business, politics, and culture — showing that the subject of Damien Costas has been covered across domains over a number of years. I believe that the article is neutrally written and properly cited. I would argue that there is no policy-based reason to delete this page. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey's report mentions Costas once. This is a long way from WP:SIGCOV of him.
The Guardian and ABC reports don't mention him at all.
The International Business Times report is an interview. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't count towards establishing notablity.
Thank you for the follow-up. To clarify, with specific reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:
Regarding significant coverage and source quality:
The Sydney Morning Herald article ("Debt deal and sex appeal") is an independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of Costas's business activities and financial history. Per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article clearly meets the threshold of WP:SIGCOV as it discusses the subject substantively rather than in passing. As established in Wikipedia policy, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
Crikey's article mentions Costas several times throughout. Further, it is not used alone to establish notability. It complements other sources that do provide in-depth coverage. Under WP:GNG, multiple sources providing coverage can collectively demonstrate notability, as the guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Regarding supporting sources and their appropriate use:
ABC News and The Guardian are used to verify key aspects of Costas's professional activities — specifically his role in organizing major speaking tours. These are supporting citations, not primary evidence of notability. Per WP:BIO (WP:Notability (people)), biographical articles may include material from multiple reliable sources to establish the full scope of a person's notable activities.
Regarding primary sources and interviews:
Regarding the International Business Times, while interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, this does not make them unusable. Per WP:NOR, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." They can be cited to support attributed statements or commentary about the subject's views — which is precisely how it's used in the article. As stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author."
Taken together — Sydney Morning Herald, Men's Health, SmartCompany, and IBTimes (for attributed quotes) — the subject clearly receives sustained, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. The General Notability Guideline requires that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
The coverage spans business, media, and cultural domains over multiple years, demonstrating the sustained attention that indicates lasting notability rather than temporary news coverage. As stated in WP:N, "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" and "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" - meaning topics are notable when "the outside world has already 'taken notice of it.'"
Weak keep on the basis that he is held by National Library of Australia and Moravian Gallery, both important and discerning public institutions. I've added a few sources for that. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the references, I don't see either of those covering Stejskal in detail. Excerpts: NL: "and a collection of theatre posters designed by Josef Stejskal (through the Esso Project)" SL (caption only): "above: Josef Stejskal, State Library staff member and designer of theatre posters" Additionally, they are not "independent of the subject". C67906:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and certainly coverage is in passing. However, I do note that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals 4 b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Also I don't see why the National Library report would be other than "independent of the subject" since he had no association with him when they collected his works. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to update: have also added info about artist holdings in National Gallery and State Library of NSW. Some acquired by public collections, some donated by third parties, some donations of artist. To me it establishes there's notability in relevant Aus art, library, theatre circles, but I acknowledge that sources remain thin. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the recently added sources help him pass WP:GNG. I haven't found any meaningful source, just databases. FromCzech (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like he's also held by the Library of Congress[4], but these are archival collections rather than art collections, so the inclusion is less useful for notability. Also, I'm not sure where we'd source any additional yet basic biographical information. Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't establish the notability of this road. As a local suburban road I don't think it's significant enough for a Wikipedia article. – numbermaniac18:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Ref 3 FilmInk is a press release. Ref 7 Sydney Times is a portion of same. Ref 5 Filmink is PR from MINA, a partner. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited from their ambassadors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is indeed notable, going from strength to strength, and has some big names associated with it. Films made on mobile phones are becoming more common. It is possible and even likely that at least some of the emerging filmmakers who feature in this festival will go on to become major filmmakers in the future. As you can see, I have added more detail and many more citations since the deletion was proposed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well... keep in mind that coverage is going to be what establishes notability here. The festival may have big names associated with it, but that notability won't be inherited. I've found what often establishes notability are things like say, Variety writing about the competition.
At first glance what stands out is that a lot of the sourcing is either a press release or heavily based on one. For example, this FilmInk source looks to be either a full reprint of a press release or so closely reworded that it might as well be one. This one by The South Sydney Herald is a local paper covering local people. The issue with local sources is that it's so routine for local papers to cover "local person does good" that it can be seen as kind of weak (at best) or even routine. Then there's this from IF Magazine, which is a routine database event listing.
Right now the page is so crammed full of press releases, routine announcements, and local coverage that it's difficult to pick out exactly what can be used to establish notability. I'm going to do a rundown of the sources on the AfD talk page, as there are so many. I'm not saying that this can't be notable, just that right now it's so stuffed full of unusable and weak sources that it comes across like it's not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)19:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Left a very long note on the talk page. Most of the sources aren't usable and are used to back up very faint claims of notability. There are some potentially usable sources, but there are none that are really solid, slam dunk sources. My recommendation here is to reduce the page to just the basics, using the sources that seem decent, and then judge notability based on that. There's so much unintentional WP:PUFFERY in the article that it really does make this seem non-notable at first glance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)21:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's biograme is merely sourced, it's known that he works as journalist that's all there no reasons for meeting notability guidelines The Wolak (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, please review new additions to this article since its nomination Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "sources" added are two bios on this fellow, an article he wrote and podcast. I can only find articles he's written, nothing about him. I don't see notability due to the lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit hard to achieve something per NSPORT and satisfy GNG if you don't play. Simply being the tallest player ever signed in the league isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being unclear. NSPORT, which is concerned with "playing", is no longer a valid guideline for Australian rules footballers. And plenty who "don't play" (in the AFL) meet GNG. Hence your nomination reasoning would've been acceptable 3 or 4 years ago, does not make any sense now. The-Pope (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources exist, but are all published around the same time in September. I don't think this meets notability standards based on WP:BLP1E. The rest are statistics pages that do not make up substantial coverage. -- Reconrabbit18:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Searching on gscholar, archive.org found virtually nothing except content about books they published, which they do not inherit the notability of. Even for a book publisher there are also not that many hits for their books, it is almost entirely citations to one book they published (which is notable), to an extent where I was able to look through the citations relatively completely. The 4th source is sigcov... but written by the founder of the company. The single piece of independent sigcov is the 5th source in this article, which is [11] this, which is fine. But that is only 1 source. Not enough for GNG or the higher NCORP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creator here. I've added three more independent sources, being a scholarly monograph, an art market paper and an obituary. It seems to me that it constitutes substantial coverage alongside the existing ones, and the fact that new research is appearing on it sixteen years after it closed is a sign of notability. Thanks! Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The monograph has a paragraph, the obituary has 1 mention. The other source has 3 sentences. Not horrible, but not enough to pass WP:NCORP. I realize Mabel Lee has an article and she is the founder so now instead of deletion I would recommend merging to Mabel Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
： Have added another source in Chinese. Of course I understand that the source base is small, but I wrote the article because I couldn't figure out what this press that had published several important writers was. Having figured out via research what it was, it seems to me very much the point of Wikipedia editing to provide that information for others. I can guarantee that it is notable for people working on translation studies in Australia, which I grant you is a small group, but we exist. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that you made this article for a good reason but the sources here do not pass WP:SIRS (required for organization articles). Notability isn't inherited from the books they publish. If it is merged the information on the publisher won't be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have added another source that I consider to be SIRS if you care to review. I suppose much of it rides on what you think is 'significant.' There are now four English IRS sources of several sentences and a fifth one in Chinese. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That source is fine. Now we have the two sources about the company, but this is still not enough for WP:NCORP per WP:MULTSOURCES. The rest are one or two sentence mentions, which do not count for notability. The rest of the English sources are passing, and the Chinese source mentions them for a single sentence ( non WP:SIRS coverage). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be factual, besides the sources you don't dispute (Galik; Taylor), Brennan is by the narrowest definition four sentences and Bruno three (or four if you also include p. 121). The Chinese source mentions them not, as you write, for a single sentence, but two (it doesn't permit copy-pasting, but the section begins with 其中 and goes to footnote 6). In all of these cases the surrounding text also bears on the situation of WP in the translation and publishing environment of the day. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only sentence in the Chinese source that refers to them: "其中A.R.戴维斯的“杜甫雨诗赏析”是我读到的最好最真切的唐诗英译! 80年代初悉尼大学的Mabel Lee(陈顺妍)博士还创立了野牡丹出版社，出版了大量优秀的亚洲文学翻译作品以及早期移民的英文作品比如来自广东的Stanley Hunt先生写的《从石岐到悉尼》" [
[One of the best and most authentic English translations of Tang poems I have ever read is A.R. Davies' “An Appreciation of Du Fu's Rain Poems”! In the early 80's, Dr. Mabel Lee (Chen Shunyan) from the University of Sydney also founded the Wild Peony Press, which published a large number of excellent translations of Asian literature, as well as early immigrants' works in English, such as “From Shiqi to Sydney” written by Mr. Stanley Hunt from Guangdong.] the footnote is a citation and does not contain more sentences. The next sentence does not mention them, only Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using text on the "surrounding situation" would be WP:SYNTH.
And sentences about Lee that do not mention Peony do not count for information on the publisher. And three sentences in a single short paragraph is also not WP:SIRS ... I can't access anything in Southerly but I would be surprised if the quality of coverage was any different. Most of these sources are really about Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the Chinese source; I misread, apologies. As for Southerly, it isn't fair to make assumptions if you haven't read it. From p. 215 of the Southerly article:
"Considering the decline in foreign language education over the last
ten years — especially those languages key to our region such as
Bahasa Indonesia, Mandarin and Japanese — it might be said, in
Howardspeak, monolingualism is all about a fair go. This is a sad
possibility for the broader Australian community, which is in actu -
ality richly polyglot. Thankfully, Mabel Lee’s and A. D. Syrokomia-
Stefanowska’s work with Wild Peony has been a particular boon,
bringing in work that may not have otherwise appeared, and is part
of a larger, albeit under-sup ported, effort on the part of Australian
translators, native-speaking collabor tors and publishers to offer
foreign language literature to an Australian audience. Mabel Lee’s
translations of Nobel Prize winner Gao Xingjian and Yang Lian,
Simon Patton’s translations, editing and collaboration through the
Chinese pages of Poetry International Web, Ouyang Yu’s work with
Otherland, Peter Boyle’s translations from Spanish and French, and
Leith Morton’s translations of Shuntaro Tanikawa, Ishigaki Rin, and
Koike Masayo, along with various Australian literary journals (notably
Heat and Southerly), and Melbourne University’s Asialink Program are
some of the key recent examples of Australian translators and pub -
lishers working against the abashed and embarrassed tide of
Australian monolingualism. The publication of collections such as
Naikan Tao and Tony Prince’s Eight Contemporary Chinese Poets, and the
work of small publishers such as Wild Peony Press, are an important
move against cultural parochialism. Sadly, Tao’s and Prince’s anthol -
ogy represents one of the last publications for Wild Peony. It is
difficult not to think, the Australian literary community might be well
served supplementing the proliferation of annual Best of Australian
Poetry anthologies with a Best of World Poetry or a Best of Poetry in
Translation. Going by Tao’s and Prince’s Eight Contemporary Chinese
Poets, the benefits would be considerable."
When I say "surrounding situation" I just mean that Michael Brennan (poet) is here substantially talking about the role of Wild Peony (among other publishers) in Australian letters, even when he does not write "Wild Peony" in every sentence.WP:SYNTH does not apply and it is not all about Mabel Lee. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is about what I expected from that. I think I've said enough words so I am going to let other people comment on if this coverage is WP:SIRS compliant. Nevertheless, thank you very much for the quote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We have two parties presenting valid but opposing arguments. We need to hear from more participants willing to carefully examine the relevant sources and deliver an opinion here. And because it is buried in part of the discussion, I'll just mention that the nominator is now recommending a Merge and not a Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only source for this football player is a bio from his club. I was unable to find any independent sources, including on the wikipedia library. It's possible there's something older and non-digitized that I'm missing, but I've had no luck at all. — Moriwen (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found 1 article on Newsbank, but Australian online coverage from the 1980s is extremely poor, and even recent Adelaide papers are behind paywalls. Absolutely guaranteed that there is a heap of coverage offline of a ten year player, twice winning the premiership, and dying young. The-Pope (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Comment. Since the previous AfD, she did get a fair bit of national media coverage earlier this year for a brief period after the council tried to pass a rule to gag her: e.g. [39][40][41][42][43]. There's also this piece in The Australian, which is probably slightly better than anything the article currently cites. I'm not convinced yet that it's quite enough to satisfy GNG, but all of the recent corruption in the Ipswich council does mean there's a little bit more non-routine and non-local coverage than I'd otherwise expect. MCE89 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite new to writing articles on Wikipedia, but this feels premature as I am currently in the process of completing this and clearly haven't finished it. As the first Mayor of Ipswich following the unprecedented dismissal of the entire council, Teresa Harding is undoubtedly a significant political figure, not only within her city but in Queensland local government more broadly. She assumed leadership at a time of crisis and undertook systemic reforms aimed at restoring public trust in local government – reforms that have received both national media attention and industry recognition.
Harding’s creation of the Transparency and Integrity Hub was widely reported on as an Australian first in public sector accountability, and the platform has since gone on to win multiple awards for excellence in governance. Her leadership in transparency and open government has been cited as a model across local councils nationwide — this is not routine coverage. It's coverage directly tied to reforms that positioned Ipswich as a benchmark for integrity in public service.
She has been profiled and quoted in national publications (e.g. The Australian, ABC News, and Brisbane Times) on issues beyond just local council matters, such as integrity, government reform, and the broader challenges facing local government post-administration.
These are not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or strictly WP:LOCAL stories. There is sustained, significant, and thematic coverage of Harding's efforts as a reformist figure in a city recovering from major scandal. Furthermore, WP:NPOL outlines that political figures merit a standalone article when they have held a significant office, especially when their work has attracted meaningful coverage. The role of Mayor of Ipswich — one of Queensland’s largest and most politically scrutinised cities — clearly meets this threshold. The fact that Harding's governance is the subject of national discussion and awards only further reinforces this.
Yes, the article (like many local politician entries) includes primary sources — but these are verifiable and properly cited alongside reputable secondary sources. If you want more, allow me the oppurtunity TO add more. It is unreasonable to dismiss a subject’s notability purely because official council statements or bios are included for factual grounding. The argument of WP:SYNTH also does not apply where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material.
To remove a page like this, particularly when Harding remains in office and continues to garner national attention, seems premature and contrary to WP’s mission of documenting notable public figures whose actions affect Australian governance.
WP:SYNTH absolutely applies where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material. If you are drawing context that's not present in secondary sources on Harding, you are engaged in original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I believe your interpretation of WP:SYNTH is being applied too rigidly here. The policy does not prohibit contextually relevant information so long as each piece is verifiable and used within its intended scope. None of the sources in question ([23]–[27]) are being used to draw conclusions about Harding herself that are not explicitly supported by the sources. They are used to establish a critical and well-documented event: the sacking of Ipswich City Council.
The policy on synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is only violated when sources are combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. But in this case, the sources all clearly state that the council was dismissed due to systemic misconduct, and that a period of administration followed. That is an undisputed historical fact, covered broadly and independently in reliable media — including at the national level. Stating that Harding was elected as mayor following that event is not original analysis; it’s chronology.
Wikipedia:No original research even clarifies that "rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." That’s precisely what’s been done here. There’s no leap in logic, no implied conclusion, and certainly no novel interpretation. It’s simply a well-sourced recounting of events that are directly relevant to Harding’s notability as the first post-dismissal mayor.
What would constitute a violation is failing to cite those events and instead summarising them unsourced — which would make the article unverifiable. The argument that mentioning the context of her office constitutes SYNTH would set a troubling precedent: it would mean we couldn’t refer to major public events unless every article about every individual involved was named explicitly in the same source. That’s not how encyclopaedic writing works, nor how WP:NOR is intended to function. Remarka6le (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Even if there is more non-routine coverage, this is basically a promotional biography and not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyerT·C15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concern around promotional tone, but I’d argue that’s a solvable issue through collaborative editing, not a reason for deletion or redirection.
If there are parts of the article that read as promotional, strip back the tone, add balance, and bring in more neutral language where needed. That’s exactly what Wikipedia’s editing process is for. Deleting the entire article — especially when there is now more non-routine, nationally relevant coverage — feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Redirecting to List of Mayors of Ipswich also isn’t a constructive alternative. That page is a shell — it lacks meaningful detail, context, or the capacity to fairly represent Harding’s role. Collapsing a complex and award-winning tenure into a bullet point does a disservice to readers and the subject. Remarka6le (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of sources [23] to [27] — these are not being used to make claims about Harding personally, but rather to establish the extraordinary circumstances surrounding her election. As the first mayor following the dismissal of Ipswich City Council for systemic misconduct and corruption, Harding's role cannot be meaningfully understood without reference to that context.
The scale of the council’s dismissal is directly relevant to the significance of Harding’s office. It is not possible, nor responsible, to write about a reform mayor brought in after a scandal of this size without referencing the event that made her election necessary in the first place.
Wikipedia requires verifiability — I can’t simply say “she was elected after the council was sacked” without reliable sources to confirm that. That’s exactly what [23]–[27] provide. They document the reasons for the council’s dismissal and form the factual, contextual bedrock for understanding Harding’s tenure.
Removing those references or dismissing them as unrelated misunderstands how context works in biographical writing. Harding’s notability is inextricably linked to the fallout of the corruption scandal. That context isn’t WP:SYNTH — it’s essential, and well-sourced. Remarka6le (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: just being a local mayor does not mean a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The "best" articles here (ABC) were in the "local politics" section. I just don't think they're enough to show Wikipedia notability, since all local politicians receive at least some coverage. Also if you are new here, please familiarise yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. I do not think you are bludgeoning yet, and you are allowed to argue your point, but it is a good policy to know. SportingFlyerT·C19:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no secondary sources about Harding say that she was elected after the council was sacked, then Wikipedia shouldn't say that. To use primary sources or sources that don't mention her to make that claim about her is a form of WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The council’s dismissal is a well-sourced public fact. Using those sources to establish a timeline is not WP:OR — it’s verifiable background. No interpretation is being added. Saying “she was elected after the dismissal” is a factual, time-based statement that doesn’t require the dismissal and Harding to be in the same sentence in a source to be accurate, as long as both are independently cited. That’s consistent with policy. Remarka6le (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO/ and WP:No original research. @Remarka6le Promotional tone falls under a specific WP:NOT guideline (the page that details what we DO NOT INCLUDE). Promotional tone is a clearly deletable offense under policy. Additionally, the sourcing is borderline; leaning in my opinion on the fail side on whether this meets WP:SIGCOV. To rescue this article it would require a complete rewrite to comply with wikipedia's policies against promoting the subject with an eye/ear towards maintaining an encyclopedic tone that is neutral and written in an impartial manner. Better sourcing is also needed to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH policies per the concerns raised by DClemens . Leaving an article in this state in mainspace is not an option. A possible WP:ATD would be to draftify and require it to pass an WP:AFC review prior to moving back to main space. That would give interested editors time to fix the tone, original synthesis, and sourcing issues, and provide a necessary review process to ensure basic standards are met before the page goes live again.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d absolutely be open to the article being draftified and going through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, rather than it being deleted outright. That seems like a far more constructive outcome, especially given that there are editors (myself included) willing to work on improving the tone, structure, and sourcing to bring it up to standard. Remarka6le (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify – Teresa Harding's tenure as Mayor of Ipswich is marked by significant reforms, notably the launch of Australia's first local government Transparency and Integrity Hub. This initiative has received national accolades, including the Smart Cities Australia-New Zealand award, and has been instrumental in restoring public trust post the 2018 council dismissal. Given her role in pioneering open governance and the sustained, non-trivial coverage of her efforts, Harding meets the WP:POLITICIANS notability criteria. I support draftification and review through the WP:AFC process to enhance the article's quality and compliance with Wikipedia standards. Remarka6le (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Again, this subject fails all ramifications of NPOL. That being said, the criteria for GNG is also not satisfied (multiple independent, reliable, and substantial coverages). Dclemens gave a proper analysis above as to why. This would need to go through AfC if for nothing else, for surety that GNG is met before acceptance, of course, unless she occupies a NPOL-notable office in the future. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Draftify – The article on Teresa Harding appears to meet the criteria set out in WP:SIGCOV, based on the sources currently cited. Deletion does not seem warranted. That said, if there are concerns about notability depth or article quality, draftification could be a suitable interim step. — DroneStar87 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am OK with draftify as an option for the page creator to demonstrate notability, along with a recommendation to submit through AfC so we're not right back here if this gets moved unilaterally to mainspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that all politicians receive some sort of significant coverage, so we look at the depth of coverage especially for local positions per WP:NPOL. Given this vote is (possibly) your first edit, that may not be obvious. SportingFlyerT·C16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. The sourcing does not meet our expectations, per WP:GNG. Size of municipality does not matter - what matters for local officials is whether there is enough reliable sources to say more than "the mayor exists." We want to see independent sources that discuss the impact of the mayor/local official had on their municipality or their region. If sent to draft, this would need to come back through AFC --Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as this article has a number of issues including lots of references with passing mentions leading to WP:CITEKILL. It reads more like a profile piece rather than an encyclopedia article. Note I haven't seen an article with significant coverage here yet, with sources put forward appearing to be routine coverage - there are lots of these references. The only reason I'm not !voting Delete is that there may be enough to meet WP:BASIC but I just haven't been able to find these. Nnev66 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Draftification helps nobody if the article topic is not notable. Some clearer source analysis might help reach a consensus on this one way or another - Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork08:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – With respect, the claim that Teresa Harding is not notable remains an opinion — not a settled fact — and one that is not universally held in this discussion. She holds a significant office in Queensland’s 6th largest LGA and has received national coverage for substantive reform efforts, including Australia’s first Transparency and Integrity Hub.
It’s also worth noting that many other mayors from Queensland’s largest LGAs already have standalone articles:
Many of these articles have remained in mainspace for years — including Peter Flannery’s, which has existed since 2020 — despite being far shorter, less sourced, and in some cases offering little more than routine electoral information. If those are considered acceptable, it sets a clear precedent for Harding’s article to be improved, not removed.
If there are concerns around tone, depth, or sourcing, draftification via AfC is a constructive middle ground. It allows those willing to improve the article the opportunity to do so, while ensuring it meets appropriate standards before returning to mainspace. Deletion or redirection is unnecessary and inconsistent in context. Remarka6le (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hence the relisting comment of 'if'. The point being that the place to establish consensus on notability is at AfD, not through a backdoor draftification, in my opinion. If the topic is notable, sending to draft should not be necessary, since AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. If it is not, there is no point in sending to draft. Of course, a consensus could still emerge to send to draft, but I'd like to see some further discusson wrt to notability. Eddie891TalkWork13:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason for Draftification is to give a newish editor some time to understand WP:GNG requirements, clear out sources that aren't needed in the article, and clean up the article. Ideally they would do that via AFC, but since we are here now at AfD, but 1-2 weeks might not be enough time, hence recommending taking back to Draft. The most ideal is for editors !voting keep is to list the three best sources for notability. If these sources are deemed routine, it's unlikely there is enough for GNG/BASIC. Nnev66 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- as nominator, I would be happy to have the redirect restored, but I am almost always willing to give a good-faith editor time to polish up an article that may not be ready for mainspace in its current form. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and restore redirect Seems to be the best course of action given the quality issues of the article. Remarka6le seems to be willing to improve it, and subject does appear to have received more news coverage since the last AfD. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work on it under the guidance of, or in collaboration with, an experienced editor to ensure it's brought to a standard everyone is comfortable with. Remarka6le (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loads of sources, so many knit-picking go on, do people forget we have WP:BASIC, this more than qualifies. I've seen far worse articles kept than this. multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article clearly satisfies WP:BASIC, with multiple independent, reliable, and non-trivial sources in national outlets like *The Australian* and *ABC News*. The notion that references to the council’s dismissal must specifically mention Harding's name in every article is a misapplication of WP:SYNTH. WP:BASIC exists precisely to prevent this kind of excessive pedantry from derailing articles about legitimately notable figures. The nomination leans heavily on WP:NOT, yet disregards that WP:BASIC alone is sufficient for inclusion. If the nominator, and those supporting the deletion submissiom, feel the article is too promotional in tone, they should address those concerns and improve the article, rather than seeking to remove one that clearly meets the minimum notability requirements. Given that the article satisfies basic notability criteria and the issue largely concerns tone or minor concerns about coverage, this call for deletion could be seen as an example of WP:Overzealous deletion. Wikipedia’s focus should be on improving articles to meet standards, rather than unnecessarily removing those that meet the minimum requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QLDLG (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so if the main concern is the tone, wouldn’t the simplest solution be to just add {{ad}} to the page? That way, it flags the issue for others and encourages edits to bring the writing in line with a neutral point of view? Remarka6le (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We’re currently in an Articles for Deletion debate, and redirecting this page to a list of Ipswich mayors is essentially a form of deletion. Remarka6le, I think adding the template is the way to go. While I disagree with the nominator’s reasons, I do agree that the tone could be improved. I see this article as a good candidate for WP:AQU — it has potential, and we should work on improving it rather than rushing to delete. WP:BEFORE steps should’ve been followed before this AfD, and we should have explored options for improvement. Applying WP:DOUBT and WP:BATHWATER, we should aim to fix the article, not toss it out. QLDLG (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BEFORE was indeed done; it is a breach of WP:AGF to assume it wasn't. The debate is whether the sources that exist in the article and outside are routine coverage of a local politician or significant coverage that contributes to GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS @QLDLG, it is unusual for a new user's first edit to be to create a user page with userboxes, etc, and then the next three edits to be to an Articles for Deletion discussion. Did you edit here under another account or as an IP editor? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casual Wikipedian in the past (last edit 2023), that account was vanished due to it being linked with a now deleted university email. This Article (and subsequent nomination for deletion) was shared in a local political discussion group on Facebook and I felt the need to contribute. Apologies if my earlier comment came across as a breach of WP:AGF — that wasn’t my intent, I'd like to outline why I said that:
Per WP:BEFORE, if an article can be improved through normal editing, it’s not a candidate for AfD (C-1), and I believe that’s the case here. Adequate sources clearly exist, quoting C-4, "the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination".
Looking at the page history, the article was nominated on the same day Remarka6le began working on it — that’s not a reasonable amount of time (IMO) to allow for development or collaboration (C-2).
I also couldn’t find any concerns raised on the talk page beforehand, and cleanup tags only appeared after the nomination (C-3).
Were these issues raised directly with the article's contributors? Because from my point of view, it feels like some of the standard steps to improve rather than remove were skipped. QLDLG (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QLDLG Thanks for explaining the history. It would be very unusual for a new user to know all these WP policies. (I would recommend describing that history on your userpage so other editors don't make assumptions about alternate accounts.) Would you also post the Facebook link where this discussion is being discussed? If there is off-wiki WP:CANVASSING going on, the closer should know about it. To address your points, no attempt to discuss with contributors was necessary because there was already an AfD consensus for a redirect, and frankly, Remarka6le should have brought it to WP:DRV before attempting to overturn the consensus. They didn't, so there's no prohibition on bringing a second AfD when someone is contravening a previous consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the discussion in question initially focused on the lack of coverage on Paul Pisasale’s page, but naturally shifted to Teresa Harding’s page once her AfD prominently displayed above it was pointed out. Since you're neither a resident of Ipswich nor an alumni of the university, you wouldn’t have access (or be granted access) to the Facebook group, so linking to it wouldn’t be useful. If there had been as much activity here as on Facebook, you’d likely have seen the discussion by now.
That said, I still think it would have been better to engage directly with the contributor. Remarka6le is clearly a new contributor, and their edits are clearly made with genuine intent to improve the article. As an experienced editor, you would know how important it is to collaborate and support new contributors. I worry that experiences like this could discourage someone who might have been a great asset to Wikipedia.
Regarding the second AfD: While there’s no rule against nominating a new AfD, the process should still be handled with care. The original AfD happened over a year ago, and Remarka6le created the article only to see it nominated for deletion less than a day later. A more reasonable approach would have been to wait at least a week to give them a chance to develop the article further or, at the very least, reach out to point out the previous AfD, maybe even offer a hand in writing the article. Rushing into a second AfD without giving the new contributor time to engage with the article is counterproductive.
You note on your userpage that you’ve done paid editing for the American Bankers Association, you consistently use American spelling, you’ve travelled to all but one US state, and many of your article subjects and edits focus on US-based buildings and religious figures. Based on that, I felt it was a reasonable inference that you're US-based. In any case, I’ll leave it there — I've said what I needed to and we’re edging into WP:BLUDGEONING, and I don’t want to derail the discussion further. QLDLG (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this relevant if ChatGPT is merely used assess the quality of secondary sources? The article has a clear chain in its edit history and is obviously not AI-produced. Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that until 2024, this organisation was named the Australian Guild of Music Education, so most sources will be under that name. I am currently looking for sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
