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.
Note that there are a few
scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Australia.
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:
Delete: I'm not entirely sure whether this article, such as it is, is about an American company or about Australian radio stations… and I'm not sure the article knows either. This has been tagged as a potential
WP:CORP failure since July 2021 (only a month after creation); if there is any solution to this that doesn't involve deletion, I'm not seeing it. WCQuidditch☎✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links (it took me a while to catch that, despite my earlier comment here). WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Without even going into suspect bona fides of the page’s author, and putting best spin on page’s intent, which is to serve as a list of Mackay Radio stations, then still fails
WP:STANDALONE.
Spinifex&Sand (
talk) 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: (Keep) She is one of the most popular active female Australian wrestlers and a pioneer of
Pro-Wrestling: EVE. Has worked for companies from three different continents and is accomplished. As for the sourcing, the article includes links to trustworthy sites such as fightful.com, voicesofwrestling.com, Squared Circle Sirens, Diva Dirt or Last Word on Pro Wrestling. They might not point her name out, but they clearly demonstrate her work. There also exist several interviews with her from YahooSports and WrestleSports. Unfortunately I didn't include them since they are only audio work. I think the article meets the notability criterias and also has a WikiData correspondent (item Q126186302), therefore I strongly believe that it should remain on the mainspace. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JeyReydar97 (
talk •
contribs) 21:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
keep Charli Evans is a major figure in the UK indie wrestling scene.
Bigkhrisdogg (
talk) 22:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Are there any sources that contribute towards establishing notability? -
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 23:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Contested G11. This appears to have been written by a
UPE and reads like an advertisement. All of the coverage I can find is run of the mill. Even if notable, G11 is appropriate.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Various blogs or reports of a store opening are all I can see for coverage. The Forbes source used is a contributor, so non-reliable. I don't find any coverage we can use for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 12:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm sure the brand will meet N eventually, but certainly not with convoluted ad copy like '(the) brand is recognized as the sixth favorite shopping website for upper-income teens in the United States, according to the Piper Sandler Taking Stock With Teens 2023 survey'...that's some stretching that'll break an ankle. Nate•(
chatter) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I reviewed and accepted this draft in AfC as I felt that the company itself met
WP:NCORP and was able to find suitable coverage online. Not going to vote formally as I already had a chance to review the article but several voters are claiming there's not enough sources that can be used to establish notability when I found multiple:
Business InsiderSydney Morning HeraldAustralian Financial Review ~
Liancetalk 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of those, I think only the BI story provides
significant coverage. The SMH story is a run-of-the-mill announcement about the parent company's IPO, with a brief mention about this brand, and the AFR story is a one sentence announcement.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are plenty of notable references to this company that could be included in this page as it meets the WP:NCORP. Including the sources noted by Liance,
Ragtrader which speaks to both positive and negative market fluctuations of the parent company,
IT News discussing a data breach, and
BBC article with Lori Loughlin scandal. Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience.
Wikiguru777 (
talk) 04:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ragtrader has no clear editorial policy, the article you've cited is run-of-the-mill reporting about stores opening, and
trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP. IT News is likewise a run-of-the-mill data breach story in a trade publication, and does not establish that the company is notable. The BBC article contains only this brief mention of the brand: "The social media influencer has launched a clothing collection with women's online fashion boutique Princess Polly and a make-up palette with cosmetics chain Sephora."
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
plenty of notable references to this company: for a company to be notable under NCORP, there needs to be more than "references"; there needs to be several sources, each of which must be
secondary,
independent, and
reliable, and contain
significant coverage of the company.Regarding: Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikipedia's readers are not an audience for advertising to.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:V - Verifiability: This article contains almost no sourcing. Information present is unreliable and a lot of it seems to have been added in contravention of
WP:NOR. Has been this way for 14 odd years judging by the article.
WP:ORG - Notability: The article does not meet the Notability guidelines for criminal organisations due to insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources.
Overall almost none of the information in this article is verifiable, and that is which is verifiable is not notable enough to warrant an article. I considered removing the unverified content, but that which would remain does not seem substantive enough.
Rakki9999111 (
talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: per
WP:BEFORE. Plenty of sources
exist online that establish notability. I will work on improving the article in the coming days.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. There seem to be plenty of sources on this group. That they aren't in the page is unrelated to notability.
PARAKANYAA (
talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately I don't see how this meets
WP:BASIC. The only independent article that offers
WP:SIGCOV is
this one by The Sydney Morning Herald. The two (
[1][2]) magazine articles by the Uniting Church are not independent and don't count towards notability. CFA💬 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Article on a planned film, apparently created by its director, hasn't actually begun filming yet, zero coverage so far outside of two posts on director's YouTube channel. Moved to draft three times, where it was correctly declined once as failing
WP:NFILM. My speedy A7 was declined in favour of a third move back to draft, but article creator moved it back to main space minutes later, so here we are.
Wikishovel (
talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Also keeps removing COI templates despite doing nothing to actually resolve it, although seems like they've stopped for now.
Sadustu Tau (
talk) 10:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – Self-promotional and non-notable. Creator has already been blocked.
Sgubaldo (
talk) 01:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Since nobody has found a reliable source in over 10 years, there likely won't be any more sources. I couldn't find any sources either.
EternalNub (
talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
*
WP:PROD would have been good for this. Australia has lots of beaches, without sources DeleteReywas92Talk 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Struck per HEY
Reywas92Talk 16:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Plenty of sources available, and it's a WP:GEOFEAT so doesn't need to specifically clear the GNG bar:
[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Needs adoption, not deletion.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added several references, an infobox, and prose to the article. (I've left the "doesn't meet GNG" box up until this AfD is closed - if the closer could please remove it.)
SportingFlyerT·C 07:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Have also added a few sources. Expect more could be done on the shark attack aspect by those with access to better Australian sources than I.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk) 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NBIO. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only
one source that contributes to notability. —
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
'''Delete''' - agree that the Herald Sun / Moreland Leader source is the only one contributing to notability - this is insufficient for establishing wider notability. Combined with the primary sources, it is overall insufficient at this time to merit inclusion.
WmLawson (
talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest?
B3251 (
talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Nothing has changed since last AfD. The current sources are enough to establish notability.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?We already have three sources that pass NCORP.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how it fails ORGIND... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Probably spent way too much time on this, but whatever. Not sure what the third source that passed NCORP was.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make.
Besides being a
WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating?
–
Barker, Gary (28 Apr 2011) "Shape of Apples to come: mac man" The Age PQ 865591170
TWL
–
–
There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company)
–
I think that's about it, unless someone wants to start digging through the dead tree copies of the Australian MacWorld and stuff. I don't see the point frankly, I find it extremely unlikely there exists anything meeting ORGCRIT.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editors wanting to Keep this article should try to rebut the source analysis presented here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I would like to change my !vote to neutral. I'm not entirely convinced that Barker and Foo don't demonstrate original opinion, but it is indeed too little. Both only count partially, so that isn't a good case for notability.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: As the chart shows, none of the sources are useful for notability in 2024... Beyond mentions of hte company, I still don't see extensive sourcing we can use to build an article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. -
AlbeitPK (
talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article that doesn't meet
WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion.
source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'.
source 3 is an obvious advert and
interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2.
Source 4 is unreliable, and
source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication.
Source 6,
source 7, and
source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it
WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article.
[10] and
[11] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet
WP:NACTOR or
WP:NAUTHOR. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The article was very stub-y so I did some work filling it out using the references that were there. Someone with better access to Australian sources can probably improve this even more.
Lamona (
talk) 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
(PROD declined with no explanation) Fails
WP:MUSICBIO. What little coverage I can find featuring this person's name is about his bands, not Burke himself
Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This page we should keep given that the musician written about has a long-term and ongoing authentic discography as cited on reliable archival / data sites such as Discogs with news features on various media outlets. If for some reason it is a problem for the information to be listed under “Rick Burke (musician)”, I would strongly recommend that rather than deleting the article on superfluous grounds, the content should be split into 2 pages: one for “Comacozer” and one for “Tropical Sludge” with a redirect from the original “Rick Burke (musician)” page. In saying that, it does not make sense to split the information into several pages therefore it should be retained as one to keep the information tidy on Wikipedia.
NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (
talk) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
NEXUS6N6MAA10816 Having a long-term and ongoing authentic discography does not count towards inclusion in Wikipedia. With regard to your suggestion the article be split, there is not enough content about those bands for one to be viable.
Mach61 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Mach61, thanks for your kind suggestions. The article is important as it streamlines information on Rick Burke which people actively search for on the internet within the context of "Underground Music" (see Wiki entry for this) and fits into the scope of "WikiProject Music". Associated acts such as Kikagaku Moyo, Electric Wizard, It's Psychedelic Baby and so on have existing entries on Wikipedia and this article will complete a missing part of that academic puzzle as it increasingly gets fleshed out as a public document. Best wishes.
NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (
talk) 05:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article that doesn't meet
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. If the band is notable, there can be option for redirecting/merging by "hell no!", it isn't either. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 07:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems way
TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur.
CycloneYoristalk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted.
AveryTheComrade (
talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article.
MyacEight (
talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?
Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates
WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPathtalk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPathtalk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Although
WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles.
MyacEight (
talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: This is ridiculously
WP:TOOSOON. The last election has only just happened and this is almost four years off. TarnishedPathtalk 08:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename to
Next Tasmanian state election. The next election in a democratic state is not a violation of
WP:CRYSTAL. I also agree with the rational of the other comments supporting a keep position. --
Enos733 (
talk) 15:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename per Enos733. Next elections are almost always notable and this doesn't violate
WP:CRYSTAL: only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, I'm still failing to see a single reliable secondary source in the article which talks about the 2028 election. How can anyone possibly argue that this passes
WP:GNG without appropriate sourcing? TarnishedPathtalk 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election.
AveryTheComrade (
talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There's absolutely zero coverage in secondary sources. How much more WP:TOOSOON can you get than that? Even if it were to be renamed to
Next Tasmanian state election the same statement holds. At best this should be draftify but I don't really see that as much of an alternative to deletion given how far out the election is. TarnishedPathtalk 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of
WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing
WP:LISTN. Additionally
WP:NOTDATABASE and
WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per
WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked
WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of
List of Wimbledon broadcasters.
Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.?
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.
Tennishistory1877 (
talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎ 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft Delete After some due research within the scope of the Australian Open, I have come to the conclusion that as a list, the topic fails
WP:LISTN, but as a prose, it has more potential as its own article. If the closer determines that, then I would suggest that we consider moving this article to just be
History of Australian Open broadcasts, remove the
WP:LISTCRUFT and
WP:OR, and keep the sources that actually commit notability to this topic.
Conyo14 (
talk) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA
Sahgalji (
talk·contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: some of her roles in notable productions seem significant enough, so that she meets
WP:NACTOR imv and deletion is not necessary. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
For example, Chupke Chupke,
Pyari Mona,
Hum Tum.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source in article and BEFORE are database records, game recaps, routine local mill news, and name mentions, nothing that meets
WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if indepth sources addressing the subject directly meeting WP:SIRS are found. //
Timothy ::
talk 17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete the sources are mainly local, same with a google news search, needs wider coverage as per
WP:AUD. Fails
WP:ORG.
LibStar (
talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
LibStar: What's wrong with the book-length source on its history listed above?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell it is self-published by a relative of a former player? Not sure if it qualifies for meeting the
WP:ORG.
Let'srun (
talk) 01:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League. I agree with LetsRun’s characterization of the earlier source brought up. It lacks independence and even if it was independent, it wouldn’t be enough on its own (plus the
WP:ROUTINE local coverage currently in the article). FrankAnchor 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A decent article
here on "Trentham's Glory Years".
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for posting a link to that great article about the Trentham FNC to help try and maintain some of the club's valuable football and netball history.
Justin J. Kelly (
talk) 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to see if some consensus on an outcome can be found. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League as an AtD. I'm likewise not impressed with the applied, presented or found sourcing, none of which meets RS. Redirect protects full page history. Some of these articles are insufficiently sourced to avoid deletion process tests.
BusterD (
talk) 08:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I would classify it as "small beer." It's difficult for me to take seriously an interview with a "legendary" somebody who recalls successfully playing minor league football in a small Victoria town sixty years ago (a "legendary" but non-notable figure in a village of almost 1,200 dwellers!), I see nothing which demonstrates this team any more notable than any of the other entries on the league article which don't have pages about them. I see nothing significant and independent which actually shows the club exists as of this datestamp. If I stipulate the team exists, I'm forced to add there's not enough direct detailing to make this team meet
WP:NTEAM (these days GNG) to rate an article on English Wikipedia. Not all local amateur sports teams are notable. The BURDEN is on those asserting keep. I assert page supporters haven't met their burden. I am arguing for a redirect outcome so that when sufficient sources ARE found, page supporters can just improve the page without hassle.
BusterD (
talk) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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. The Keep views offered no guideline-based arguments.
Owen×☎ 11:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources, I couldn't find anything that is both reliable and provides
WP:SIGCOV.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Thanks for flagging. Have improved the article with additional authoritative news sources. We are talking here about one of the very best saxophone players of his generation. In the Brit Awards 2024 (the leading awards in UK for music), RAYE won more awards than any other artist, so for Blevins to have a track named after him on her album is notable. He has been regularly in the bands of several household name stars and played in a Grammy award winning album.
Wikiwikiwwwest (
talk) 00:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Still try to include more sources that contribute to the
WP:GNG criteria.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per adequate refs by now
JarrahTree 01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Which sources? I wasn't able to locate any.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 04:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Coverage in the article is now about the Raye group, which isn't helping this person's individual notability... Listed here
[12], but it's always in a long list of other people. Playing on an album with a group of others doesn't meet notability here.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎ 05:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the subject of this article lacks in-depth coverage in secondary, reliable sources, so it fails
WP:NBIO. I couldn't find any indication it meets
WP:MUSICBIO either. The additional references do not solve the problems highlighted by the nomination. Lots of
WP:REFSPAM overall.
Pilaz (
talk) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (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.
Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations
The following Australian-related articles are currently Proposed for Deletion:
Australia-related Miscellany for deletion
The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Templates for Deletion
The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Categories for Discussion
The following Australian-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:
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.
Note that there are a few
scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by
a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Australia.
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:
Delete: I'm not entirely sure whether this article, such as it is, is about an American company or about Australian radio stations… and I'm not sure the article knows either. This has been tagged as a potential
WP:CORP failure since July 2021 (only a month after creation); if there is any solution to this that doesn't involve deletion, I'm not seeing it. WCQuidditch☎✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links (it took me a while to catch that, despite my earlier comment here). WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Without even going into suspect bona fides of the page’s author, and putting best spin on page’s intent, which is to serve as a list of Mackay Radio stations, then still fails
WP:STANDALONE.
Spinifex&Sand (
talk) 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: (Keep) She is one of the most popular active female Australian wrestlers and a pioneer of
Pro-Wrestling: EVE. Has worked for companies from three different continents and is accomplished. As for the sourcing, the article includes links to trustworthy sites such as fightful.com, voicesofwrestling.com, Squared Circle Sirens, Diva Dirt or Last Word on Pro Wrestling. They might not point her name out, but they clearly demonstrate her work. There also exist several interviews with her from YahooSports and WrestleSports. Unfortunately I didn't include them since they are only audio work. I think the article meets the notability criterias and also has a WikiData correspondent (item Q126186302), therefore I strongly believe that it should remain on the mainspace. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JeyReydar97 (
talk •
contribs) 21:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
keep Charli Evans is a major figure in the UK indie wrestling scene.
Bigkhrisdogg (
talk) 22:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Are there any sources that contribute towards establishing notability? -
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 23:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Contested G11. This appears to have been written by a
UPE and reads like an advertisement. All of the coverage I can find is run of the mill. Even if notable, G11 is appropriate.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Various blogs or reports of a store opening are all I can see for coverage. The Forbes source used is a contributor, so non-reliable. I don't find any coverage we can use for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 12:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm sure the brand will meet N eventually, but certainly not with convoluted ad copy like '(the) brand is recognized as the sixth favorite shopping website for upper-income teens in the United States, according to the Piper Sandler Taking Stock With Teens 2023 survey'...that's some stretching that'll break an ankle. Nate•(
chatter) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I reviewed and accepted this draft in AfC as I felt that the company itself met
WP:NCORP and was able to find suitable coverage online. Not going to vote formally as I already had a chance to review the article but several voters are claiming there's not enough sources that can be used to establish notability when I found multiple:
Business InsiderSydney Morning HeraldAustralian Financial Review ~
Liancetalk 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of those, I think only the BI story provides
significant coverage. The SMH story is a run-of-the-mill announcement about the parent company's IPO, with a brief mention about this brand, and the AFR story is a one sentence announcement.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There are plenty of notable references to this company that could be included in this page as it meets the WP:NCORP. Including the sources noted by Liance,
Ragtrader which speaks to both positive and negative market fluctuations of the parent company,
IT News discussing a data breach, and
BBC article with Lori Loughlin scandal. Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience.
Wikiguru777 (
talk) 04:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Ragtrader has no clear editorial policy, the article you've cited is run-of-the-mill reporting about stores opening, and
trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP. IT News is likewise a run-of-the-mill data breach story in a trade publication, and does not establish that the company is notable. The BBC article contains only this brief mention of the brand: "The social media influencer has launched a clothing collection with women's online fashion boutique Princess Polly and a make-up palette with cosmetics chain Sephora."
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
plenty of notable references to this company: for a company to be notable under NCORP, there needs to be more than "references"; there needs to be several sources, each of which must be
secondary,
independent, and
reliable, and contain
significant coverage of the company.Regarding: Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikipedia's readers are not an audience for advertising to.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:V - Verifiability: This article contains almost no sourcing. Information present is unreliable and a lot of it seems to have been added in contravention of
WP:NOR. Has been this way for 14 odd years judging by the article.
WP:ORG - Notability: The article does not meet the Notability guidelines for criminal organisations due to insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources.
Overall almost none of the information in this article is verifiable, and that is which is verifiable is not notable enough to warrant an article. I considered removing the unverified content, but that which would remain does not seem substantive enough.
Rakki9999111 (
talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: per
WP:BEFORE. Plenty of sources
exist online that establish notability. I will work on improving the article in the coming days.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. There seem to be plenty of sources on this group. That they aren't in the page is unrelated to notability.
PARAKANYAA (
talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately I don't see how this meets
WP:BASIC. The only independent article that offers
WP:SIGCOV is
this one by The Sydney Morning Herald. The two (
[1][2]) magazine articles by the Uniting Church are not independent and don't count towards notability. CFA💬 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Article on a planned film, apparently created by its director, hasn't actually begun filming yet, zero coverage so far outside of two posts on director's YouTube channel. Moved to draft three times, where it was correctly declined once as failing
WP:NFILM. My speedy A7 was declined in favour of a third move back to draft, but article creator moved it back to main space minutes later, so here we are.
Wikishovel (
talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Also keeps removing COI templates despite doing nothing to actually resolve it, although seems like they've stopped for now.
Sadustu Tau (
talk) 10:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – Self-promotional and non-notable. Creator has already been blocked.
Sgubaldo (
talk) 01:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Since nobody has found a reliable source in over 10 years, there likely won't be any more sources. I couldn't find any sources either.
EternalNub (
talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
*
WP:PROD would have been good for this. Australia has lots of beaches, without sources DeleteReywas92Talk 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Struck per HEY
Reywas92Talk 16:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Plenty of sources available, and it's a WP:GEOFEAT so doesn't need to specifically clear the GNG bar:
[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Needs adoption, not deletion.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added several references, an infobox, and prose to the article. (I've left the "doesn't meet GNG" box up until this AfD is closed - if the closer could please remove it.)
SportingFlyerT·C 07:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Have also added a few sources. Expect more could be done on the shark attack aspect by those with access to better Australian sources than I.
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (
talk) 12:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NBIO. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only
one source that contributes to notability. —
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
'''Delete''' - agree that the Herald Sun / Moreland Leader source is the only one contributing to notability - this is insufficient for establishing wider notability. Combined with the primary sources, it is overall insufficient at this time to merit inclusion.
WmLawson (
talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest?
B3251 (
talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Nothing has changed since last AfD. The current sources are enough to establish notability.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?We already have three sources that pass NCORP.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see how it fails ORGIND... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Probably spent way too much time on this, but whatever. Not sure what the third source that passed NCORP was.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make.
Besides being a
WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating?
–
Barker, Gary (28 Apr 2011) "Shape of Apples to come: mac man" The Age PQ 865591170
TWL
–
–
There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company)
–
I think that's about it, unless someone wants to start digging through the dead tree copies of the Australian MacWorld and stuff. I don't see the point frankly, I find it extremely unlikely there exists anything meeting ORGCRIT.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editors wanting to Keep this article should try to rebut the source analysis presented here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I would like to change my !vote to neutral. I'm not entirely convinced that Barker and Foo don't demonstrate original opinion, but it is indeed too little. Both only count partially, so that isn't a good case for notability.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: As the chart shows, none of the sources are useful for notability in 2024... Beyond mentions of hte company, I still don't see extensive sourcing we can use to build an article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. -
AlbeitPK (
talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article that doesn't meet
WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion.
source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'.
source 3 is an obvious advert and
interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2.
Source 4 is unreliable, and
source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication.
Source 6,
source 7, and
source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it
WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article.
[10] and
[11] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet
WP:NACTOR or
WP:NAUTHOR. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The article was very stub-y so I did some work filling it out using the references that were there. Someone with better access to Australian sources can probably improve this even more.
Lamona (
talk) 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
(PROD declined with no explanation) Fails
WP:MUSICBIO. What little coverage I can find featuring this person's name is about his bands, not Burke himself
Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This page we should keep given that the musician written about has a long-term and ongoing authentic discography as cited on reliable archival / data sites such as Discogs with news features on various media outlets. If for some reason it is a problem for the information to be listed under “Rick Burke (musician)”, I would strongly recommend that rather than deleting the article on superfluous grounds, the content should be split into 2 pages: one for “Comacozer” and one for “Tropical Sludge” with a redirect from the original “Rick Burke (musician)” page. In saying that, it does not make sense to split the information into several pages therefore it should be retained as one to keep the information tidy on Wikipedia.
NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (
talk) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
NEXUS6N6MAA10816 Having a long-term and ongoing authentic discography does not count towards inclusion in Wikipedia. With regard to your suggestion the article be split, there is not enough content about those bands for one to be viable.
Mach61 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Mach61, thanks for your kind suggestions. The article is important as it streamlines information on Rick Burke which people actively search for on the internet within the context of "Underground Music" (see Wiki entry for this) and fits into the scope of "WikiProject Music". Associated acts such as Kikagaku Moyo, Electric Wizard, It's Psychedelic Baby and so on have existing entries on Wikipedia and this article will complete a missing part of that academic puzzle as it increasingly gets fleshed out as a public document. Best wishes.
NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (
talk) 05:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article that doesn't meet
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. If the band is notable, there can be option for redirecting/merging by "hell no!", it isn't either. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 07:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems way
TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur.
CycloneYoristalk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted.
AveryTheComrade (
talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article.
MyacEight (
talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?
Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates
WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPathtalk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPathtalk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Although
WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles.
MyacEight (
talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: This is ridiculously
WP:TOOSOON. The last election has only just happened and this is almost four years off. TarnishedPathtalk 08:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename to
Next Tasmanian state election. The next election in a democratic state is not a violation of
WP:CRYSTAL. I also agree with the rational of the other comments supporting a keep position. --
Enos733 (
talk) 15:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename per Enos733. Next elections are almost always notable and this doesn't violate
WP:CRYSTAL: only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, I'm still failing to see a single reliable secondary source in the article which talks about the 2028 election. How can anyone possibly argue that this passes
WP:GNG without appropriate sourcing? TarnishedPathtalk 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election.
AveryTheComrade (
talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There's absolutely zero coverage in secondary sources. How much more WP:TOOSOON can you get than that? Even if it were to be renamed to
Next Tasmanian state election the same statement holds. At best this should be draftify but I don't really see that as much of an alternative to deletion given how far out the election is. TarnishedPathtalk 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of
WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing
WP:LISTN. Additionally
WP:NOTDATABASE and
WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per
WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked
WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of
List of Wimbledon broadcasters.
Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.?
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.
Tennishistory1877 (
talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎ 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft Delete After some due research within the scope of the Australian Open, I have come to the conclusion that as a list, the topic fails
WP:LISTN, but as a prose, it has more potential as its own article. If the closer determines that, then I would suggest that we consider moving this article to just be
History of Australian Open broadcasts, remove the
WP:LISTCRUFT and
WP:OR, and keep the sources that actually commit notability to this topic.
Conyo14 (
talk) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA
Sahgalji (
talk·contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: some of her roles in notable productions seem significant enough, so that she meets
WP:NACTOR imv and deletion is not necessary. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
For example, Chupke Chupke,
Pyari Mona,
Hum Tum.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source in article and BEFORE are database records, game recaps, routine local mill news, and name mentions, nothing that meets
WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if indepth sources addressing the subject directly meeting WP:SIRS are found. //
Timothy ::
talk 17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete the sources are mainly local, same with a google news search, needs wider coverage as per
WP:AUD. Fails
WP:ORG.
LibStar (
talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
LibStar: What's wrong with the book-length source on its history listed above?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell it is self-published by a relative of a former player? Not sure if it qualifies for meeting the
WP:ORG.
Let'srun (
talk) 01:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League. I agree with LetsRun’s characterization of the earlier source brought up. It lacks independence and even if it was independent, it wouldn’t be enough on its own (plus the
WP:ROUTINE local coverage currently in the article). FrankAnchor 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A decent article
here on "Trentham's Glory Years".
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for posting a link to that great article about the Trentham FNC to help try and maintain some of the club's valuable football and netball history.
Justin J. Kelly (
talk) 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to see if some consensus on an outcome can be found. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League as an AtD. I'm likewise not impressed with the applied, presented or found sourcing, none of which meets RS. Redirect protects full page history. Some of these articles are insufficiently sourced to avoid deletion process tests.
BusterD (
talk) 08:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I would classify it as "small beer." It's difficult for me to take seriously an interview with a "legendary" somebody who recalls successfully playing minor league football in a small Victoria town sixty years ago (a "legendary" but non-notable figure in a village of almost 1,200 dwellers!), I see nothing which demonstrates this team any more notable than any of the other entries on the league article which don't have pages about them. I see nothing significant and independent which actually shows the club exists as of this datestamp. If I stipulate the team exists, I'm forced to add there's not enough direct detailing to make this team meet
WP:NTEAM (these days GNG) to rate an article on English Wikipedia. Not all local amateur sports teams are notable. The BURDEN is on those asserting keep. I assert page supporters haven't met their burden. I am arguing for a redirect outcome so that when sufficient sources ARE found, page supporters can just improve the page without hassle.
BusterD (
talk) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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. The Keep views offered no guideline-based arguments.
Owen×☎ 11:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources, I couldn't find anything that is both reliable and provides
WP:SIGCOV.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Thanks for flagging. Have improved the article with additional authoritative news sources. We are talking here about one of the very best saxophone players of his generation. In the Brit Awards 2024 (the leading awards in UK for music), RAYE won more awards than any other artist, so for Blevins to have a track named after him on her album is notable. He has been regularly in the bands of several household name stars and played in a Grammy award winning album.
Wikiwikiwwwest (
talk) 00:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Still try to include more sources that contribute to the
WP:GNG criteria.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per adequate refs by now
JarrahTree 01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Which sources? I wasn't able to locate any.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 04:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Coverage in the article is now about the Raye group, which isn't helping this person's individual notability... Listed here
[12], but it's always in a long list of other people. Playing on an album with a group of others doesn't meet notability here.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎ 05:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the subject of this article lacks in-depth coverage in secondary, reliable sources, so it fails
WP:NBIO. I couldn't find any indication it meets
WP:MUSICBIO either. The additional references do not solve the problems highlighted by the nomination. Lots of
WP:REFSPAM overall.
Pilaz (
talk) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (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.
Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations
The following Australian-related articles are currently Proposed for Deletion:
Australia-related Miscellany for deletion
The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Templates for Deletion
The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Categories for Discussion
The following Australian-related CfD's are currently open for discussion: