Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Oceania. 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.


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


[edit]

Australian Powerlifting Alliance

[edit]
Australian Powerlifting Alliance (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)

The article is almost entirely based on primary sources. A search for third party sources reveals just 1 google news hit. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Photonics Network

[edit]
Victorian Photonics Network (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)

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict talk! 22:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Harding

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Teresa Harding (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)

Just a year ago, this page was redirected following an AfD discussion due to lack of WP:GNG-qualifying coverage and a failure to pass WP:NPOL. The page has been recreated at much greater length but I am not seeing the kind of WP:SIGCOV we need to see. To the extent there is any secondary coverage here, it is either local coverage that is limited to her role as mayor or a mayoral candidate ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:ROUTINE election coverage ([7], [8]). I am concerned that this article also fails WP:NOT by constituting WP:OR, considering the extensive use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, including official bios or statements ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), primary source election results ([17], [18], [19]), and the subject's own Facebook posts ([20], [21], [22]). There is also a high likelihood of WP:SYNTH given the page creator's use of several sources that do not even mention Harding ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27]). I see no warrant for a standalone page here and seek a fresh consensus for a redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep There appears to be enough information to establish notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. 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.
    Let’s improve the article, not delete it. Remarka6le (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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. SportingFlyer T·C 15:28, 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. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 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]

List of populated places in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

[edit]
List of populated places in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (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 page is pointless. It is a list of two places, both of which are already mentioned on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Steelkamp (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. Athel cb (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Abdo

[edit]
Basem Abdo (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)

The seat of Calwall hasn’t been called and the Australian Electoral Commission, according to the ABC, has stated that the count is complicated and a result would not be known until preferences are distributed[1]. As such, Basem Abdo isn’t the member for Calwell and outside of his potential being a member of Parliament, has no notability. Geelongite (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Abdo is up by over 24 thousand votes. If you really want to be anal about it you could redirect to the division page until it is called. That doesn't require deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess. The article creator probably should have waited until the seat was actually called, but now that the article exists I don't think it really needed to be nominated for deletion while we're still waiting on the result. The result will be official in about a week and based on the count it seems very likely that Abdo will win (although given the complicated preference distribution, the 2PP estimate is a bit misleading). If someone feels strongly about draftifying this for the couple of days between this AfD closing and the seat being called then that's fine by me, but this whole discussion is probably a bit of a waste of time. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2025/guide/calw

List of settlements on Christmas Island

[edit]
List of settlements on Christmas Island (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 list is unnecessary. There are only 5 places listed. Ethel seemingly isn't a settlement, but a beach. The others are all mentioned within the lead of Christmas Island. Steelkamp (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely pointless. Athel cb (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Australian federal election

[edit]
Next Australian federal 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)

Another editor recently created this article which I promptly moved to Draft:Next Australian federal election as WP:TOOSOON. That article was then submitted to WP:AFC with the reviewer also determining it was WP:TOOSOON (refer to Special:Diff/1289245425). This article has now been created and it is obviously still WP:TOOSOON. The previous federal election has bairly concluded and the Australian Electoral Commission has not declared all seats (AFAIK). All we know is that there will be an election in the next three years, however not at what point. TarnishedPathtalk 01:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: usually whenever the election is over we make an article for the next one. These discussions happen all the time and they end up resulting in keeping the article. Schestos (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if WP:TOOSOON is still determined then we can put this page back into draftspace. I figured that other elections such as the 2025 Canadian federal election did have its subsequent page created while results were being finalised. However, I am not opposed to whatever decision that everyone decides to go with. At the very least when we do create the page based on timeliness, the content is there and ready to go. GarbageKarate (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GarbageKarate, There is another article in draftspace is the problem. TarnishedPathtalk 01:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath, Happy for this one to be deleted then if the one in draftspace can be amended to more current information if it makes things easier! GarbageKarate (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GarbageKarate, if you were the only editor of the article I would suggest tagging it with {{Db-g7}} but unfortanetly it has now been edited a bit by two other editors. TarnishedPathtalk 01:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath, What would you suggest we do in this case? Should we wait for the discussion to run its course, and then let the article be deleted? Apologies — I wasn’t aware there was already a draft in draftspace at the time. GarbageKarate (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GarbageKarate, I think we have to allow the discussion to run its course. Given the article has been edited by other editors, those editors may disagree with my assessment of WP:TOOSOON. TarnishedPathtalk 02:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure of the draft issues or how to resolve the draft and this article. However I don't believe it is too soon. Although some seats have not been decided, many have been and enough so that ministers including the prime minister have already been sworn in by the governor general and the government has been chosen, and the main opposition selected too. Also some articles referring to the next election are now appearing Eg Ley 2028 Tax Policy 2028. MyacEight (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to the next election in passing is not the same as having WP:SIGCOV of the event. TarnishedPathtalk 07:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article will be needed anyway, and it is factual to suggest that a combined lower house and upper house election will need to take place by May 2028. Furthermore, the background section is a description of events that have already happened (such as the leadership elections) and is sufficient for the background of the next election. As for what to do with the draft article, I suggest just redirecting it to the main article, with an edit summary in the main article linking to the draft article for attribution. The main article is already more detailed than the draft article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GarbageKarate: For future reference, please please please please check if there is a space in draftspace before creating an article. There would have been a banner that says there is an article in draftspace. It may be unfair for editors of the draft article to be ignored as their contributions and edit histories cannot be easily merged. Marcnut1996 (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Anthony Chaffee

[edit]
Dr. Anthony Chaffee (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 article only has two sources that might good for notability, but that doesn't automatically make the subject notable for Wikipedia and writing tone sounds like advertising, so there might be a conflict of interest. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ClubHouze

[edit]
ClubHouze (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)

The article refers only to self-published and primary sources. I cannot find any independent sources with significant coverage. The organization seems to have had a facebook-page that has not been updated for quite a while. I do not see how or why this organization may be notable. Fails WP:GNG. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poor uncredible references. Delete as not notable entity (early childhood learning provider). Linkusyr (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bankstown City Lions season

[edit]
2024 Bankstown City Lions season (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 football season may be too far down the pyramid to meet WP:GNG. Almost all of the players are redlinks and all of the coverage seems to be primary sources, including Facebook. Any relevant information here could be put on 2024 Football NSW season; having said that, there is no prose to begin with. C679 04:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Servite et contribuere please elaborate further on how this article meets GNG. I would love to know. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Wildberger

[edit]
Norman Wildberger (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)

Math BLP which was converted in 2022 by David Eppstein to a redirect to a book by Norman Wildberger. Redirect replaced by Ad Huikeshoven by one paragraph on the book, plus a cite to a YouTube page (dubious as a RS). Time for some extra eyes on the question of whether to enforce the (implicitly contested) prior redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including or excluding Norman Wildberger from Wikipedia has been, for some reason, a long-running dispute, lasting many years. I once, years ago, created an article with his name as the title. It was quickly deleted. I was surprised but decided there was no reason for me to pursue the matter. After all this time here is the issue again. I know Wildberger published a paper on some extension of Catalan Numbers. Maybe the paper is a genuine contribution to mathematics and maybe it will turn out not to be. However, why is Wildberger's inclusion such a hot topic? I really have no idea, but I wonder if there is a vendetta involved. Dratman (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment led me indirectly to recall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman J. Wildberger. It was long ago and before the more recent publicity both for the current material and for his work on Babylonian mathematics, so I don't think it should be taken as precedent, but it does shed light on how long this has been going on and on the rationale for the redirection of your version, at least:
  • Creation of an article on "rational trigonometry": 2005 (at that time not focused on the book but on the mathematics it described)
  • Original creation of biography under "Norman J. Wildberger" (still visible in the history of that title): 2006 by Overlord~enwiki, immediately disputed as non-neutral
  • Rational trigonometry tagged as problematic based on using only the book as a source: 2009
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman J. Wildberger: 2009. I did not take part in the debate, but performed the merge that it called for.
  • Redirect "Norman Wildberger" pointing to same article created, 2010
  • "Norman Wildberger" split off as a separate biography, 2011 by Dratman, restored as a redirect by me, since at that time we had a recent consensus not to keep the two separate.
  • Meanwhile the article on rational trigonometry was long problematic and was tagged as having only one source (Wildberger's book) in 2009
  • Rational trigonometry acquired more tags including one for notability in 2013. More sources including book reviews were added, and this caused some edit-warring as editor Paul White pushed to remove any criticism from the main part of the article and link it only at the end. After more edit-warring by single-purpose accounts, SohCahToaBruz proposed that it be deleted in 2013 but Arxiloxos removed the prod as it was clearly not uncontroversial and had a previous deletion discussion.
  • In 2015 there was again a repeated attempt by some anonymous editors to remove critical material from the lead, and disputes over the placement of this material continued until at least 2018 when I semi-protected the article (allowing only long-term editors to change it for the following year)
  • In 2020 I took the initiative to change it from an article about rational trigonometry to an article about the book itself. I believed then and now that the book is clearly notable as the subject of multiple independent reliably-published reviews, regardless of whether or not any other related topics are separately notable. (I happen to have a copy of the book prominent on my office bookshelf but I hope the article reflects only the views of the published reviewers and not my own.)
  • Since then there have still been some disputes but overall the book article has been much more stable than the rational trigonometry article was.
  • Another creation of a separate biography (by another editor), restored as a redirect, 2022.
I don't know whether this history sheds any light on why this has been such a matter of dispute, but I hope it helps. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. It's definitely not impossible this paper could become notable but I don't think that what look like blog posts copied from a press release are enough for notability of the person. Sesquilinear (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The new work on the power series solution to polynomials is mathematically legitimate and pretty cool, though I don't know how important. It's published in the American Mathematical Monthly which is where the AMS puts articles of general mathematical interest that aren't too technical. I wasn't aware that he had written a book. I don't know what he means about not believing in irrational numbers, but that seems to be a thing with combinatorialists: Doron Zeilberger is very respectable, and doesn't believe in infinite sets (i.e. he believes that the set of integers is finite, aka ultrafinitism). Anyway I don't have any objection to keeping the article. I don't know anything about an earlier controversy if there was one. Wildberger fwiw has a Youtube channel with a sizeable viewership (127K, not bad for a math channel). I've only watched one video (the one about the recent work on polynomial solutions) and it was informative and watchable. 2601:644:8581:75B0:EDBF:1B48:1FC1:48B8 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Guild of Music & Speech

[edit]
Australian Guild of Music & Speech (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)

Exam fails WP:GNG. Sources are nothing but primary sources. GTrang (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTrang,
thanks for flagging this. Have briefly revised the page with some further secondary sources to demonstrate some notability. Very best, Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My source-quality scanner picks up "possibly AI-generated slop", flagging all references except 1, 4, 6. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:15, 11 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]

A Night in Texas

[edit]
A Night in Texas (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 to fail WP:NMUSIC. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Australians Party

[edit]
Great Australians Party (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only two mentions in Crikey ([39], [40]). toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 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.

Paula Kruger

[edit]
Paula Kruger (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:JOURNALIST. Pizza on Pineapple (Let's eat🍕) 05:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm curious to know why you don't think this person is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia- they have decades worth of relevant experience and engagement in the Australian industry and are now head of the Media Diversity Australia ARealWorm (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not meeting notability due to a lack of independent sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 5 is the only independent sourcing about this person. I don't find any other articles that could be used for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think it's close. I agree that source 5 is the best source, and it's an article largely focused on the subject that was published in one of Australia's newspapers of record. But source 4 is also independent, significant coverage in a very reputable newspaper. I think you could easily make the case that those two sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. But both are very similar routine staffing announcements (one says she is joining ABC Radio Canberra, the other says she is now leaving), and feature a very high volume of quotes. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I don't think I really see the necessary depth in those two sources to demonstrate notability. MCE89 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments - however there are more sources there now - please review ARealWorm (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look like any edits have been made to the article since I left my comment here. What additional sources are you referring to? MCE89 (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally unharmful to have an article Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Quintessential (company) (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)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 22 closed with no consensus and I decided it was appropriate to relist. Procedural nomination, no opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Delete in previous discussion). While TNT was appropriate for the prior version, the new version is acceptable and has national coverage in Australia. 🄻🄰 13:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Commander Keane says: Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. I did, and see three sources, not four. When I look at the sources, doing what a reader of the encyclopedia who wants to verify the content will do, I run into the Australian Financial Review paywall. I didn't try to follow the instructions that Keane says are seamless, because a reader won't be able to follow those instructions. In particular view of the history of conflict of interest editing, good-faith proponents should have some respect for the concerns of the editors who first objected to a spammy article and now object to an article with one old but significant source and two old invisible sources.
Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary Satisfies GNG
1 Australian Financial Review Paywalled report of purchase of a building Yes Probably Yes Probably No. Fails verifiability.
2 www.smh.com.au Discussion of recent activity by company Yes Yes, just barely Yes Yes Yes
3 Australian Financial Review Paywalled Yes Probably Yes Probably No. Fails verifiability.

If the proponents can't find any non-paywalled sources, then respect for the core policy of verifiability should be to move this into draft space until the proponents can pass the Heymann test by finding viewable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon As I am sure you are aware, there is absolutely no requirement that sources be non-paywalled in order to satisfy WP:V. In fact, WP:V explicitly says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. I am more than happy to send you PDFs of any of the sources currently used in the article or any of the other sources I linked above (which I will add to the article as well) if you wish to verify them for yourself. But insisting that all readers should be able to access sources has absolutely no basis in policy. If that was the case, sources like the New York Times and the majority of academic journal articles could not be used for establishing notability either, since many readers will encounter a paywall. But policy is clear that sources should not be rejected just because some readers may not be able to access them. MCE89 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did say I planned to review the sources in more detail if it ever got relisted, so I suppose I better get on with it before this expires. Starting with the best and clearest examples selected by MCE from the previous AFD:
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.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Lindsay, Nicole (14 March 2018). "Quintessential's opportunity fund ready to roll". The Sydney Morning Herald. (also in current article)
 – I would say between 40 to 80 percent of the article is quotes from the company, but I am willing to tentatively accept it on ORGIND Yes – The bigger issue is that the non-quote content is heavily WP:ORGTRIV – and I am not fully convinced that it demonstrates the author's own analysis or evaluation —
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2476776820)
 – Yes – Fairly similar to the above, maybe slightly better in terms of detail. If these are the best sources available, I would be inclined to exclude – —
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 3074029294) (also currently ref 3)
 Yes I am inclined to assess this one as fully meeting ORGIND Yes No but it falls further from addressing the company itself directly or in-detail – realistically, there is analysis here, and good analysis, but more about the (CBD office) real estate market than any of the companies
Lenaghan, Nick (22 September 2014). "Quintessential time to sell-five asset portfolio". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1748982798)
 – Yes No Less detailed than the other Lenaghan article, or the SMH. Not much to say. –
Thomson, James (8 March 2024). "Meet the bravest investor in office property". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest has 3 different versions, 3063607564 is one)
 No The way I see it, this is one of your usual CEO puff pieces Yes No Yes
Tauriello, Giuseppe (26 February 2025). "Port Adelaide Distribution Centre expected to fetch $220m". The Australian.
 – Yes – I would disagree this has meaningful independent analysis, but it's not significantly worse than the SMH. I would place it between that and the 2014 Lenaghan. – —
Wilmot, Ben (3 July 2024). "Quintessential agrees to pay $250m for Brisbane CBD tower". The Australian. (ProQuest 3074848171)
 Yes Yes – Actually relatively good on the other criteria, but it's not clear to me we can say much about the company with the content therein Yes —
and I think I'll finish off my first round of reviews with ref 1 currently in the article, since the other two were already listed:
Schlesinger, Larry (4 March 2015). "Quintessential Equity pays $32m for 360 Capital's Canberra building". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1747550524)
 – Yes No Less detailed, less analysis. I would rate it below the 2014 Lenaghan. No
For my second round or reviews, we'll start with the one Commander Keane noted as promising, which I believe would be:
Brown, Greg (22 August 2013). "Shane Quinn won't yield on incentives". The Australian. (ProQuest 1426541389)
 No Virtually entirely "he says" from the co-founder which would typically be considered to fail the second half of WP:ORGIND Yes – –
Lenaghan, Nick (24 March 2021). "Quintessential Equity arrives in North Ryde". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2504294758)
 No Look, the main issue with these "We bought this, this is why this is a good deal for us" (other than the fact that they're mostly quotes) Yes No is, of course they're going to make vague waves about how they're a good company doing good deals. No investment manager is going to go up to a news company and say "here's how we do a bad job with our clients' money". – There's analysis here, but almost all of it is "invest in us, here is what we say our strategy is, it's very good", and it's from the company.
Lenaghan, Nick (17 March 2021). "Quintessential wins jewel in Adelaide's high-tech precinct". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2501830229)
 – I think I would put this at around the Tauriello article. Yes – The last and 5th from last paragraphs are mostly what I'd look at. Though, I wonder if looking at all the (marginal) Lenaghan articles as a single source could be an option. – —
Lenaghan, Nick (18 June 2014). "Quintessential considers Canberra buys essential". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1749585511)
 No Yes No I would say this is less useful than the (other) 2014 and North Ryde articles by Lenaghan, and would not have useful content even if combined. –
"Quintessential wins $120m WorkSafe building in Geelong". Australian Financial Review. 16 February 2016. (ProQuest 1765335569)
 – Yes No I don't think the middle bit is useful SIGCOV for this company, and the rest is ORGTRIV stuff. –
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.
 – Yes – Honestly I think this one might be the best one yet, either that or the Visy article by Lenaghan – —
Johanson, Simon (10 November 2015). "Cashed-up investors prompt funds managers to sell". The Sydney Morning Herald.
 – Yes No I would say this is something like the Schlesinger article, where there is not enough directly about the company, out of the independent secondary content. –
Tauriello, Giuseppe (7 November 2023). "Quintessential secures third tenant for upgraded Telstra building". The Australian. (ProQuest 2887105309)
 – Yes – Slightly worse than the other Tauriello article, and I don't think combining the two would help much even if we wanted to do that. – —
Wilmot, Ben (23 September 2014). "Quintessential in $90m sell-off". The Australian. (ProQuest 1563927930)
 No I was about to mark it as fully passing ORGIND until I realised Bishop was the person handling the sale (it did say that in the article, just missed it initially) Yes No This is really the heart of ORGTRIV, where the only information in there is useful about that one specific transaction. –
Overall, I'm not really convinced the sources meet NCORP at this point, but I will be adding the other 8 of 15 to my assessment table later, before looking for, e.g., that 2013 The Australian article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, that took a bit more out of me than I expected (hence the long break as well), so I don't think I'll be looking for any more sources yet. But, overall, I don't think the available sources quite clear what we want to for WP:NCORP, though there are a few I might be convinced are valid, like the Visy article by Lenaghan or WorkSafe by Johanson. I'd be happier if the three best sources more clearly featured direct and in-depth information (better than either of those two) about the company that also meets the second half of ORGIND though, so at the moment I'm still leaning towards a delete, or back to draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete based on the source analysis above and the fact that the article is basically devoid of useful information, except that company bought property X and sold it for Y dollars. --hroest 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are finely balanced on the keep/delete axis and I would rather not close as another no-consensus given the recent history. I would particularly like to hear from User:Commander Keane, User:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, and User:MCE89, if they are willing, as to their views on the source analysis User:Alpha3031 has been kind enough to perform and whether they maintain their keep !votes in its light.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.
    • Article I mentioned above (@User:Alpha3031): "'Quinn won't yield on incentives' Brown, Greg.  The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T.. 22 Aug 2013: 33" [57] (hopefully that TWL link works) was the article I was talking about. It is not groundbreaking, just better or equal to the others.
    • Source searching: There may be more, who knows. It must be exhausting to review all sources presented, it may be easier to browse through the better ones and evaluate them. The CEO puff piece (#5 in the table above) was a newspaper's blog/website according ProQuest, the evaluation was inevitable.
    • Passing comment: I said in the DRV that notability guides are about guessing if an article meets content policies, but I can see it is also something of a "I don't like it" stamp. That's fine, it is just frustrating to me that if this gets deleted I will be the only one with access to the information. Particularly the paywalled stuff. Newspapers showed some interest beyond casual buy/sell mentions. There is good stuff across various sources and we can put together an article, but we don't want to.
    • Ponderance: This is the silly "other stuff exists" argument but I saw Michael Tritter (a minor character on a TV show) on the Main page. We like the source coverage there apparently. We are the encyclopedia of 2000s American TV shows but not of 2000s Australian businesses.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think ORGIND and NORG in general has been tightening in response to spam over the years, and there is an argument that we could have gone too far, but at the moment the balance is a considerably stricter standard than other topic areas which probably deletes some articles which are probably not too spammy but still probably lets a lot of spam through. Hard balance to strike. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The tables above focus on certain attributes of a source but omit two vital elements for NCORP criteria which are easy to overlook if the focus is on GNG only - in-depth and "independent content" about the company. Rules out stuff like regurgitated announcements and advertorials, a good source will have in-depth independent analysis/commentary/etc. None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 17:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies to Alpha3031, I didn't spot your coverage of the 2013 article in the middle of your table. It is nearly all co-founder quotes.
    I think HighKing's point may be summed up by the final part of WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation.... I accept that from what I have seen, no journalist has sat down and done this properly (as reflected in the table above). There is public interest in the company (hence the sustained coverage), there is enough to create a useful article (I personally found interesting coverage going beyond triviality) but perhaps the overarching concern is that a neutral article cannot be written without thorough journalistic opinion, analysis and investigation? I can empathise with the fear of being overrun with articles and this is a reasonable argument.
    The strength of Wikipedia can be in bringing sources together to cover a topic, but the golden nugget exposé source for this company may not exist. It is hard for me to accept the deletion of knowledge that has value. Commander Keane (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the source analysis by Alpha3031 is extremely reasonable. I am still of the opinion that enough of the sources meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND to satisfy NCORP, but I think reasonable minds may differ on precise interpretations of those guidelines for some of these sources. I've summarised my reasoning for three of the sources that we agree are among the most promising, plus this new one I found, in the table below.
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.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Wilmot, Ben (19 April 2023). "Brookfield wins interest in $300m Brisbane tower". The Australian.
 Yes This one is clearly independent, as all of the parties involved declined to comment given that their negotiations were ongoing at the time Yes Yes Tells us that Quintessential is considered a savvy buyer with a focus on quality assets, that it is looking for an exposure to the city which is expected to benefit from the 2032 Olympics, and that the boutique property house has been linked to a series of office deals amid a change in the investment cycle. It also distinguishes this potential deal from Quintessential's past purchase strategy, saying that its most recent purchase in Adelaide was a refurbishment and repositioning play while this Brisbane building is in the luxury market Yes Provides secondary analysis of what the potential deal says about the market and about Quintessential's strategy
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review.
 Yes Yes Yes I disagree that this one falls short of addressing Quintessential itself directly. It says that Quintessential is one of the few investor groups buying up CBD office towers, and that its thesis for doing so is based around securing them at or near the bottom of the market and in better performing markets such as Brisbane where vacancy rates are lower and A-Grade rents are still rising amid a flight to quality. It also says that it is able to do so because of its loyal investor base and that part of its motivation for its purchases is to improve its ESG credentials. Yes Strikes me as providing meaningful secondary analysis regarding the author's thesis for why Quintessential is one of the few investors buying CBD office towers
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.
 Yes Contains one brief quote, but I don't see any reason to doubt its independence Yes Yes Explains what is distinct about Quintessential's strategy - that it has stamped a presence in the office space by buying, regenerating and re-leasing older buildings in Canberra and NSW to government and other tenants - and provides an overview of its historical purchases and development pipeline. Yes This appears to be original, secondary analysis of the company's historical buying strategy and a brief overview of its pipeline
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review.
 Yes Slightly more quote-heavy, but not enough to meaningfully undermine its independence in my view Yes Yes Places this particular lease in the context of the longer-term view the fund manager and syndicator is taking on the prospect of disruption in the industrial market, giving some analysis of what this disruption might look like, and explains that Quintessential’s strategy is to acquire and regenerate value-add and core-plus commercial office and industrial properties in CBD and city fringe markets. Yes This also strikes me as original, secondary analysis by the article's author, explaining how this particular deal connects to other purchases that Quintessential has made and that it "vindicates" Quintessential's original purchase of the asset.
MCE89 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MCE89, all of those sources are based on company announcements. Sometimes it is obvious, such as when the article directly attributes the information as having originated from the company ("announced", "confirmed", etc). Also next time, might be worthwhile checking to see if the "story" is covered by another publication and carries the same information - if so, you'd have to agree that for something to contain "independent content" (as per ORGIND) then the article has to have something kinda unique. So this source isn't "independent" because, on the same day, this entirely "different" article has the exact same information. Similarly, this article mirrors the Sydney Morning Herald article. HighKing++ 15:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s just not true at all. The fact that two publications report on the same event doesn’t make them non-independent sources. If you read the sources that you claim “mirror” one another, you will see that they are distinct articles reporting on the same event. A newsworthy event like a major property acquisition is obviously often going to be reported on by multiple publications. And the fact that an article contains things like “the company confirmed” or “the company announced” does not make that source non-independent, as long as the source also contains independent analysis of the company’s announcement. For instance, think of all the stories that begin with “the Trump administration announced (some new policy)” and then provide analysis of that policy announcement - the fact that they are “based on” an announcement by the administration obviously doesn’t make them non-independent souces. And what about the first two sources in the above table, which are clearly not just regurgitating company announcements? MCE89 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you remove the duplication that appears in both articles and the content which originated from company sources (which appears to include all the "facts and figures", a "feature" of all Quintessential announcements), what precisely is left? If you're pushing that what is left is an "independent analysis" you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company? I don't see any independent "analysis" of the announcement. As for the first source, did you even read it? Point out where I can find any in-depth independent content *about the company* - not rumour and gossip about a potential upcoming business deal or details about other property. The second article is about a property slump in Brisbane, using the topic company's announcement of price paid vs what was previously floated as a potential price to underpin the assertions, half of the article isn't even about the topic company. Here's an article published on the same day with the same facts and numbers about the deal. In my experience, when you get articles published on the same day covering the same event, they're rarely going to meet NCORP because they regurgitate the same information provided to them by the company. HighKing++ 09:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company. Did you not see the table you're replying to where I did exactly that? I pointed out the paragraphs and sentences that, in my view, provide significant independent analysis. For instance, the first source explains that Quintessential's previous deal in Adelaide was to refurbish a building, but it's been linked to a series of deals involving more upmarket office buildings amid a change in the investment cycle, and that this deal in particular would give it greater exposure to the Brisbane market ahead of the 2032 Olympics. I don't see how that could possibly fall into the category of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" or "brief or passing mentions". MCE89 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're probably at an impasse. You want to say that the first article is good - its mostly about rumours and gossip and most of the article talks about the Brisbane commercial property market in general. ORGTRIV also includes as examples, routine coverage of capital transactions. Most of the article deals with the Bris Nor does the article fit any of the descriptions of WP:SUBSTANTIAL, nor can you say it meets CORPDEPTH's definition: "[D]eep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". At most, you could say that there are a total of 6 sentences in that article which are about the company - that simply isn't sufficent to meet "deep or significant" requirement. HighKing++ 18:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Launch Vehicle

[edit]
Austral Launch Vehicle (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)

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [58], [59], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. A merge into Australian Space Agency would retain this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. As AnonymousScholar49 notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.
I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ping: @Ethmostigmus, @Hal Nordmann, @HerBauhaus. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, two of the refs you added are duplicates of a reference already in the article (Schutte and Thoreau's "The Austral Launch Vehicle: 2014 Progress in Reducing Space Transportation Cost through Reusability, Modularity and Simplicity"), I assume this was a mistake. The third reference I see you've added, Preller and Smart's "SPARTAN: Scramjet Powered Accelerator for Reusable Technology AdvaNcement", is a conference paper that only briefly mentions the ALV. Both Schutte and Thoreau's paper and Preller and Smart's paper were presented at the same conference, the 12th Reinventing Space Conference that was held in 2014 (they are listed online as being published in 2016/2017, but this is just when the proceedings were made available online - the actual papers were presented in 2014). The fourth reference, "Scramjets for Reusable Launch of Small Satellites" also by Preller and Smart, also seems to only be a passing mention. That gives us two papers from 2014 and one from 2015. Looking at those references and the Google results, I can't find any evidence of further developments since 2015, and even at the time the coverage was quite minimal. This is worth noting because it indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I maintain that this fails GNG, and is best covered with due weight in an existing article like reusable launch vehicle. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Liversidge

[edit]
Reuben Liversidge (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)

No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. The TV show he was on, Round the Twist is notable, but his role in it for two seasons is not. Checked Google and ProQuest which yielded 4 hits (cast lists and passing mentions, plus "contributes a wicked March Hare and terrific Humpty Dumpty" in a 2009 review in The Age). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considered redirecting to Round the Twist but that article does not mention the actor or his role. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does mention his role, Anthony, in Round the Twist#Characters#Other. That section doesn't name any actors, though - but maybe more characters and actors could be added to the Round the Twist#Casting table. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Push from the Bush

[edit]
The Push from the Bush (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)

Interesting topic but doesn’t appear to satisfy WP:GN or WP:NBOOK. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 11:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest a redirect to Marian Quartly § Career for now, as one of the co-founders of the journal. I would tend to agree that coverage as part of the Bicentennial History Project would be more likely in the future, but given that it is mentioned at Quartly's article I'd say she is a suitable redirect target for now, with a retarget once we can actually write that other article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think that redirect makes sense now I think about it. My initial thinking was that it seemed a bit weird to redirect to only one of the two co-founders when the journal could just as easily be mentioned in Atkinson’s article, but I agree that it’s a fine target for now. And it at least preserves the article history for a potential merge into a future article. MCE89 (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedridden

[edit]
The Bedridden (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 was flagged since 2007, although the citations template was removed without improvement [60]. There is only one source on the page and that is just a reference to playing a song on a radio show. Searches show almost nothing. I found a reference to a saying attributed to them (wrongly), and some primary sourcing but I cannot find any independent reliable secondary sourced coverage of this non notable band. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article, although about band leader Baterz, mentions The Bedridden:
https://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/ward-barnaby-charles-13976
It is Baterz' obituary, published in dB Magazine, an Adelaide based reputable street press (https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/2803467) 149.167.27.78 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another Baterz' obituary article from The Canberra Times mentions The Bedridden:
https://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/ward-barnaby-charles-13976/text24895
Both these obituaries, although not the original copies from the original publications, have been collected by the Australian National University's Obituary Australia (https://oa.anu.edu.au) 149.167.27.78 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article from the Canberra Times about the Bedridden:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126976895?searchTerm=Baterz 149.167.27.78 (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article from Australian publication (print and online) Beat about a Bedridden compilation:
https://beat.com.au/the-bedridden-gorilla-gorilla-gorilla/ 149.167.27.78 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With two obituaries (dB Magazine and The Canberra Times) and the Canberra Times and Beat articles, it looks like there's enough to keep something. Whether that's an article about The Bedridden, or an article about Baterz, I'm not sure. (Btw, I found several gig listings for "Baterz Bedridden".) There's also something in Overland in 2002, of which I can only see a snippet [61] - perhaps another obit? The book Rock 'n' roll city. Part two, Adelaide Babylon seems to be only in a few libraries in South Australia, so would need someone there to check it out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. The book, Rock 'n' roll city, part two, Adelaide Babylon is not available in any library service I can access, but I notice that it is self published by the author, Eric Algra. Algra is a photographer, and so I would expect that this volume contains photography - an image of the band - but not SIGCOV. Neither would it be a WP:RS as it would be self published by someone who is not an established expert in the field of music. Any information it contained about the band would likely have come directly from them or their publishing material. So I think it is out on a number of counts. Obituaries are often not independent, but in any case they would support (or not) a page on Baterz. I don't see SIGCOV on the band in (Smith, 2002). There is a bit more in (Jones, 2002). The piece in the Canberra Times is primary. The piece in Beat is secondary though. It's all pretty marginal. Can we make a page from The Beat piece and the Jones obit? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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


[edit]

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

None at present
[edit]

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

None at present
[edit]

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


[edit]

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

None at present

|}

Shortcut


New Zealand

[edit]

Hieronymus Bosch (band)

[edit]
Hieronymus Bosch (band) (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)

One source is confirmed unreliable (see RSDISCOGS) and the other does have a bio and links to articles which mention the band in passing, but it's really not much and doesn't seem like enough. Couldn't find any other coverage of the band. No apparent redirect targets. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Obvious

[edit]
Ron Obvious (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a recording engineer and producer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC.
As always, people are not automatically notable enough to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on significant coverage and analysis about them in reliable third-party sources independent of themselves, but this is completely unreferenced -- and while perusing the edit history reveals that it's had a couple of references in the past, they weren't solid or GNG-worthy ones: there was one Q&A interview in which he was talking about himself in the first person and one glancing namecheck of his existence in a deadlinked source that wasn't about him, and nothing else besides those at any point, so even if they were readded now that still wouldn't be enough.
Further, the most frequent editor of this article has been a user named "Ron Obvious V", a clear conflict of interest, and he's gone with a significantly self-promotional and résumé-like tone rather than a neutral one.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this article has ever contained. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeynep Heyzen Ateş

[edit]
Zeynep Heyzen Ateş (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:GNG. Kadı Message 18:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wilkinson-Smith

[edit]
Chris Wilkinson-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)

Clearly promotional BLP filled with puffery. The only indication of notability is the article's assertion that the subject was appointed to a quasi-governmental office of "crown solicitor". The position is of so little notability that we don't have an article on it; and regardless, the cited source only states that the article's subject was briefly acting in the role and did not formally hold it. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just to note a Crown Solicitor is a private lawyer hired by the Crown for prosecutions. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There do not seem to be enough RSes to justify inclusion here. This also seems to be a bit of puffery. Therefore, it should not be included.
  • Delete Agree, there is nothing particularly notable about him.Blackballnz (talk) 08:10, 12 May 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.

David Barry (New Zealand paediatrician)

[edit]
David Barry (New Zealand paediatrician) (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 like a great person, but does not appear to satisfy notability criteria WP:BIO with multiple significant coverage from independent RS. I’m no expert on WP:NACADEMIC but I don’t think the 2 reasonably cited articles are enough. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Point 1 of ANYBIO is receiving a significant honour. I'd say that his QSO meets that mark; there are only 226 recipients. If we're invoking WP:NACADEMIC (which seems reasonable) he satisfies point 3 as fellow of the RCP and RACP, and seems clearly more notable than the average professor. As for GNG, this [62] is one source; can anyone do better? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the QSO and 1990 medal, which are significant honours. Also noting that paediatricians are primarily medical professionals rather than academics, while some of them may do research and publish papers not all of them do. DrThneed (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Rowing Club

[edit]
Hamilton Rowing 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)

Very short stub & has a lot of issues. It doesn't even meet the notability criteria saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 16:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories / Templates / etc.

[edit]

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

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

[edit]

Claytus Taqimama

[edit]
Claytus Taqimama (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:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NATH. Simply competing in world championships does not confer notability. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

for occasional archiving

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Oceania&oldid=1290392554"