Knowledge

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania - Knowledge

Source 📝

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 {{Knowledge: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 {{Knowledge: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 Knowledge's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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


Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates

Rabila railway station (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 little is known of this station." - direct quote from the article. Looking for this online only gets me results for Rabale railway station in India. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

ThinkUKnow (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)

Absolutely no sources. Article is in an enormous mess and has been completely hijacked to refer to something other than its title. WP:TNT. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Also please check sources identified during the first Keep AfD. Thanks,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The problem is have you seen the state of the article? It's no longer about the ThinkUKnow campaign, it's entirely about something else which is not notable. This mess should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete the mess, sure, but not the page :D. I will start. Feel free to revert my edits. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Thomas Faulkner (physicist) (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)

Associate professor with an h-factor of 33 and no major awards. Page was created in 2014 when he was an assistant professor -- in 2024 that would (should) not be done of course. The page was tagged for academic notability in 2020, and no improvements have been made and he seems to have slipped through the cracks. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Cannot find any relevant recent improvements, deletion seems proper. TheHalalanator (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Mount Barker United SC (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 can't find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro Australian football team that isn't on the website of its football federation (footballsa.com.au) and thus independent. As a result, this is a WP:GNG / WP:NSPORT failure. (If you see coverage I may have missed, please ping me.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Monica Tudehope (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:NPOL as an unelected candidate; routine coverage is unhelpful for NBASIC. (NPP action) C F A 💬 22:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You may be correct in that the creation of the article was premature as it fails WPNPOL, though I would suggest delaying any deletion process for two weeks until the Epping State By-Election as Tudehope may be elected, and would then warrant the existence of a page as is the practice with other NSW Parliamentary members including David Saliba, Jacqui Munro and Bob Nanva. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
IE - Deleting a page only for it to be rewritten an republished in a fortnight. Keep the page for now. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Draftify: I struck out my previous !vote. She is the most likely candidate to be elected, the by-election is in a couple of weeks, and I think draftify would be the best option until the by-election date. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
This makes sense and reiterates the point I made earlier. Thank you. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Epping State By-Election. Premature creation, Knowledge is not a home for political advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete political candidate that fails WP:NPOL. We can recreate if she gets elected. LibStar (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
    As @GMH Melbourne said, it seems silly to delete an article only for someone to have to rewrite the same thing in two weeks time if she is elected. ErgonomicMinder (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete – From a functional standpoint, I agree it would be unhelpful if Tudehope was elected in about three weeks' time and this article had been deleted by then. However, "she might be elected" is not a policy-based reason and keeping the article or dratifying it on that basis alone would not only violate policy but set a bad precedent. This reminds me of something similar that happened with a federal (national) candidate in Canada whose article was deleted and recreated twice because he was the hopeful, won in the preliminary voting, then lost by a narrow margin in the final count. Whose opinions are we giving unweight due to when we say that a candidate is the favourite to win? Why not create an article or draft for Duncan Voyage, in case he wins instead? From a policy standpoint, this article was created too soon and should not exist, and the arguments to keep it rely on contradictions of WP:FUTURE. Yue🌙 21:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Joe Fonti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON for an article as I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this Australian rules footballer to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences of coverage here interspersed between some quotes, and this routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this young Australian rules footballer. Draftify until better sourcing is found. JTtheOG (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The Volte (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lots of paid PR, routine business news. scope_creep 07:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Brad Farmer (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)

There has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Australian Democrats (Queensland Division) Incorporated (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)

Minimal article on a state branch. The Australian Democrats were never significant in state level politics in Queensland and this article is little more than excess detail about the foundation of the branch, a list of federal Senators from the state and obscure points of Queensland company law. State & territory branches of Australian parties should only exist when the party was a significant force at that level. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

IC Markets (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 can't see that the article passes WP:NCORP. Almost all of the available sources seem to be paid PR. Those that aren't paid PR lack WP:SIGCOV. In keeping with almost all the sources being paid PR, the article is heavily promotional. I don't see that anything has changed since the last deletion. TarnishedPath 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Vgbyp (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
The first SMH article is mostly quoting or attributing statements to IC. This is not WP:SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" as required by WP:NCORP.
The second SMH article mentions them in passing three times. There is no SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".
I can't access The Australian article, because it's behind a paywall. No comment there.
The Knews article is about IC Markets (EU) Ltd which is registered in Cyprus, so not sure it is completely relevant to this article as this is about an Australian entity. That aside this isn't really SIGCIV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".
The ABC article looks fine. I'm not seeing enough here, but then I can't see the Australian article. TarnishedPath 09:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
The news about the Cypriot entity is relevant as the current article also provides information about the operations outside Australia. This probably has to be rewritten to clarify the connections between such entities though. Vgbyp (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Even if it is of any relevance, there's no SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" in that article. TarnishedPath 12:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Per @TarnishedPath, none of @Vgbyp's suggested articles actually meet WP:SIGCOV. I will try to have a deeper look but struggled to find anything on my first WP:BEFORE. Cabrils (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Actually, all of the articles suggested by me (except for the Sock puppets and Lifeline ads: Welcome to the wild world of copy trading by SMH) meet WP:SIGCOV. The subject doesn't necessarily need to be the source's main topic if it's covered directly and in detail, which is the case for the four news articles from my list. Vgbyp (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • The question we need to consider is whether they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, not whether you think they are SIGCOV compliant. We require in-depth WP:NCORP "Independent Content" WP:ORGIND *about* the *company*. The "Fake Margin Calls" articles has no in-depth information about the company other than generic information such as where there HQ is located. Repeating what the company told its customers, quotes, etc, is not "Independent Content". The article about the company getting fined is based on a press release for a total of 7 sentences, none of which provide any in-depth information. The first source about the class action simply regurgitates court documents and is not "Independent Content" and the other source is also not Independent Content as it relies on commentary from the lawfirm filing the case. HighKing 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
For anyone with TWL bundle access, the article in The Australian is available via ProQuest (2912082870), among other means. I will reserve comment on the rest of the issue to a later date. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@Alpha3031, thanks for that. Given what is covered in that article I don't see that it adds to the notability of the company taking into the requirements of WP:NCORP. Simply that the company be addressed directly and in-depth by independent sources. A lot of the article is quotes from either the company or from lawyers investigating initiating a class action against the company (i.e., not independent). What is left over is not the company being addressed directly and in-depth. TarnishedPath 03:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Article makes no claim to encyclopedic importance. It should have been speedy deleted per WP:A7 but it was oddly declined. Being a student and in a program that trains opera singers does not make one encyclopedic. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Edwardx WP:SPEEDY is different than a WP:GNG deletion rationale. The article still fails to make a credible encyclopedic claim in its current state and should be deleted under A7. SPEEDY is cleanup for articles that don’t meet a basic level of stub competency. Please read A7 which specifically excludes notability as a relevant issue. Yes notable topics can get deleted under A7.4meter4 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4 Your CSD nom was declined. AfD is not for relitigating declined CSDs. Different criteria apply at AfD. You need to make a different argument. Edwardx (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
No. That argument is WP:WIKILAWYERING and a subversion of both deletion policy and WP:CONSENSUS. It was the wrong call to not delete this article under A7 which doesn't make a credible encyclopedic claim. It's perfectly valid to seek community consensus to overturn a bad decision made by an editor who ignored A7 policy. If you want the encyclopedia to keep this article than I suggest you edit the article to meet a basic level of encyclopedic competence so A7 isn't valid. Otherwise, we don't keep articles on WP:BLPs that don't make a credible claim of encyclopedic importance no matter how many sources we find because WP:Notability is not relevant under A7 which is policy.4meter4 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
If you think it "was the wrong call to not delete this article under A7", then why have you not raised this at User talk:asilvering? It was their call, not mine. Edwardx (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
That should be obvious. It's better to use the WP:CONSENSUS process when there is a difference of opinions. That's wikipedia community policy, and WP:AFD is the community forum to discuss deletions. FYI WP:SPEEDY policy gets used at AFD with some frequency. It's not like this is an out of the norm conversation. Not all AFDs involve just WP:N. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
On a side note, the tone of the comments here is overly terse and accusatory. You might want to try WP:AGF and actually look at A7 policy objectively. You can't seriously be telling me that an article telling us someone went to a music school and got into a training program for opera singers is encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@TheJoyfulTentmaker WP:A7 has to do with in article text. Not what is outside the article. Please engage with WP:A7 policy language.4meter4 (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems like none of the keep voters are engaging with WP:A7 as policy. If the current in article text remains unaltered and we close this as keep, this will be a prime candidate fro WP:DELETIONREVIEW. We either follow deletion policy or we don't. It's that simple. If editors are finding encyclopedic achievements not currently in the article text please add a sentence or two to the article so that A7 is no longer an issue. 4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think these are about this person , , but I'm unsure. European opera isn't in my wheelhouse. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - although I would greatly prefer that someone add the sources found and explain in context - per WP:HEY. I am an opera queen, but I’m not familiar with the subject. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get a review of the sources. A reminder, AFD isn't CSD so we needn't be focused on a previous tagging and stick with standard notability assessment of creative professionals that occurs in AFD deletion discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.rbo.org.uk/people/lauren-fagan No From a website which seems to have an vested interest in promoting Fagan No Yes ✘ No
https://www.rbo.org.uk/news/young-artist-profile-lauren-fagan-being-an-opera-singer-isnt-a-normal-job-its-a-vocation-that-influences-your-whole-life No From a website which seems to have an vested interest in promoting Fagan No Yes ✘ No
https://www.harrisonparrott.com/artists/lauren-fagan No Talent management agency No Yes ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/may/30/la-traviata-opera-holland-park-review-verdi Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://musicalamerica.com/news/newsstory.cfm?storyID=50995&categoryID=2 Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.thetimes.com/article/la-boheme-opera-review-royal-opera-house-london-rk3khdt9h Yes Yes ? Paywall ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@GMH Melbourne: Thanks for the analysis! But Musical America seems to be reliable, right? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree, I have amended the table. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Musetta in La bohème at the Royal Opera House 2024. Reviewed in i: The Paper For Today by Jessica Duchen "but any chemistry between these two was a tad outshone by that of Marcello and Musetta - baritone Mikhail Timoshenko and soprano Lauren Fagan (replacing Danielle de Niese) - who blended seriously impressive singing with uninhibited sensuality to magnificent effect." and in The Times by Neil Fisher "In a hairpin turn from having just sung Gretel in Hansel and Gretel at this address, Lauren Fagan’s take-no-prisoners Musetta is irresistible, having great fun with the physical comedy (watch out for the flying knickers) but also giving this good-time girl a stature she often lacks." and in The Observer by Fiona Maddox "As the quarrelsome Musetta and Marcello, the Australian soprano Lauren Fagan and the Russian baritone Mikhail Timoshenko revelled in disputation, as well as attracting sympathy." and in the Express by William Hartston "Covent Garden audiences last saw Fagan as Gretel in the Christmas production Hansel and Gretel, but Musetta's knickers-removing antics at the Cafe Momus are gloriously accomplished and strikingly more adult." "All of the leading parts are well sung, with Ruzan Mantashyan and Lauren Fagan particularly excellent."
Margarita in Ainadamar at Theatre Royal then Edinburgh Festival Theatre 2022 reviewed in the Times by Simon Thompson "Soprano Lauren Fagan is the actress Margarita, singing the opening scenes with a deep chest voice but scaling gleaming heights for Margarita’s final apotheosis." and in The National by Stewart Ward "Thus is the scene set for an opera comprised of totemic episodes from the artistic life of Lorca (played with wonderful sympathy by the American mezzo-soprano Samantha Hankey) and Margarita Xirgu, the actor-director who was Lorca’s great collaborator and champion (performed with a truly Spanish passion by the Australian soprano Lauren Fagan)." and in The Herald (Glasgow) by Keith Bruce "But others will surely single out Lauren Fagan's equally commanding Margarita or the beautiful voice of Colombian soprano Julieth Lozano as Nuria, and it would be foolish to argue." and in The Daily Telegraph by Nicholas Kenyon "As Margarita (a role conceived for Dawn Upshaw), Lauren Fagan is superbly forceful in a part that reaches high both in range and in passion." and more
Helena in A Midsummer Night's Dream Glyndebourne 2023 reviewed in The Times by Richard Morrison "When anger erupts among the drugged lovers (an excellent quartet of Caspar Singh, Rachael Wilson, Samuel Dale Johnson and Lauren Fagan), there is an alarming degree of vitriol in their voices and body language." and Financial Times by Richard Fairman "The four mortals — Lauren Fagan, Rachael Wilson, Caspar Singh and Samuel Dale Johnson, all good — are fired up when Wilson's Hermia lets fly in their quarrel." (Also Daily Mail * 2 but that's not liked by Knowledge, excessively I think for some things like this but that's not for here)
Violetta in La Traviata'm at Her Majesty’s Theatre (Adelaide). Article in Iannella, Antimo (2022-02-27). "Prodigal's return for star role". Sunday Mail (Adelaide). and article in "Prodigal's return for star role". The Advertiser (Adelaide). 2022-07-22. and review in Shaw, Ewart (2022-08-29). "Something to sing about". The Advertiser (Adelaide). "Lauren Fagan, as Violetta, is beautiful, and the range of her music and emotion is fearless. At every moment, in triumph and despair, she holds the audience's attention like a star."
also worth noting Gretel in Hansel And Gretel Royal Opera House 2023. Reviewed in Mail on Sunday by David Mellor "It has been much commented on that, at last, it's being done here in English. But some of the singers have poor diction, like Australian Lauren Fagan's Gretel. She might as well have been singing in Serbo-Croat."
More at .
Helen Donaldson (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)

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2018. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you please cite the sources (and add the missing noteworthy facts) in the article itself? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sara Macliver (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)

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2020. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Monophile Which of the sources are both independent and have significant coverage? What am I missing here? I am not seeing even one source that is both independent and has in-depth coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
1234567
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
"Directory Search Results". directory.uwa.edu.au. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Question? Red XN Broken url, but its a directory listing with no attributed author. Unclear if it is a secondary source of information. Lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ryan, Gavin (2011). Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010 (PDF ed.). Mt Martha, Victoria, Australia: Moonlight Publishing. p. 173. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Brief mention in a table. No in-depth coverage or discussion. Fails WP:SIGCOV
"ARIA Awards – Winners by Award". Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA). Retrieved 12 November 2018. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A primary source, so can not be used to prove notability as it is not secondary. Fails WP:SIGCOV
Sara Macliver website Green tickY Question? Red XN Question? Red XN Not actually a website of the subject. Bach cantatas is a website anyone can edit, including the subject, just like wikipedia. Not reliable.
*Naxos website Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Lacks independence from the subject as it is her record label. Fails WP:SIGCOV
Post Newspapers interview Green tickY Red XN Question? Green tickY Red XN Interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources because they typically don't involve fact checking and lack independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Now Winter 2006 (Australian series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NALBUM. No significant coverage. Folkezoft (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep can’t believe I’m saying this, because the NOW compilations are such schlock… but. Accredited platinum album by the ARIA (who certify that stuff for Australia), so it seems to pass.
Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Grange Road, Adelaide (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:GEOROAD. Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ . LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"The article has existed for over six years with no concern" is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a clear consensus here to Keep but I'm unsure if the existing sources can justify this closure. Can editors who want this article Kept do a little digging for some reliable secondary sources? If this road is that important, they should be out there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

List of entertainment events at the Sydney SuperDome (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:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Weak statement of inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Mark Diamond (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)

Questionable notability for Australian bureaucrat. Most sources discuss the RTBU rather than Diamond. Insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Profile is sufficing the WP:BLP and WP:Notability. As per the WRS, here's the link providing his mentions on multiple government official websites as well as on Parliament of New South Wales' official website. Article can be made concise rejecting the poorly sourced information. Here are the links below I have found during research validating his notability.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/rail-unions-given-24-hours-to-call-off-industrial-action-20220901-p5bepf.html
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/06/sydney-train-strikes-union-boss-hopes-federal-intervention-puts-go-slow-on-nsw-government-action
https://www.rtbu.org.au/mark_diamond_appointed_as_new_rtbu_national_secretary
https://www.rtbu.org.au/who_s_who
https://www.actu.org.au/directory/rail-tram-and-bus-union-rtbu-national-office/
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/dominic-perrottet-told-to-call-gladys-berejiklian-as-rail-feud-continues/news-story/12176af725b86627d3612ee8ee0a7586
https://www.rtbu.org.au/national_council_2023_wrap
https://rtbuexpress.com.au/rtbu-owned-training-organisation/
https://www.rtbu.org.au/resignation_of_national_secretary_mark_diamond
https://www.railexpress.com.au/rtbu-appoints-new-national-secretary/
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/compromise-in-the-jobs-summit-confrontation-in-the-foyer-20220901-p5bemu.html
https://www.fullyloaded.com.au/rtbu-names-new-national-secretary/
https://www.busnews.com.au/rtbu-says-federal-budget-a-turning-point-in-public-transport-funding/
https://www.themandarin.com.au/198708-perrottet-and-rtbu-attend-summit-as-industrial-actions-continue/
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/organisations/registered-orgs/139v-r2022-201.pdf
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-96367
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/01/dummy-spitting-nsw-government-gives-rail-union-24-hours-to-end-industrial-action
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-21/wallan-train-derailment-union-says-track-awaiting-maintenance/11987230
Tamaraharon (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
rtbu.org.au would be a primary source. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get an assessment on this huge list of links so we know whether or not they are reliable. Tamaraharon, it would be helpful if you made this live, active links.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry UnionDelete I had looked at this article when it was first listed, and found many of the sources identified by @Tamaraharon so this was quick work. Aside from the primary sources, these are mostly just Diamond being quoted in an article which I don't think qualifies for notability. I see one source that qualifies for notability in the whole pile -- the Sydney Morning Herald article, #11 below -- which can be seen as significant and independent coverage from a major news outlet. The Guardian article #16 has a bit of editorial independence but it's really short - basically quoting him and then quoting someone reacting to him.
  • - quoting MD only
  • - quoting MD only
  • - primary
  • - primary
  • - doesn't mention MD
  • - quoting extensively with some editorial independence (but no independent reporting about Diamond)
  • - primary
  • - primary
  • - primary
  • - all material about him is from RBTU employee, lacks independence
  • - independent, significant, about Diamond
  • - same as railexpress.com.au article #10, lacks independence
  • - quoting MD only
  • - mention only
  • - all material about him is from RBTU employee, lacks independence
  • - quoting MD, plus very brief coverage
  • - quoting MD only
Oblivy (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I highly doubt your assessment of sources because the pages that you published, you have cited primary sources, even press releases of the same company website. Here's the example Tam Jai Noodle#cite note-10 , Tam Jai Noodle#cite note-11, High Sierra Music Festival#cite note-2, High Sierra Music Festival#cite note-3. In fact, most of the sources in your pages are weakest and lack reliability so i believe your assessment of sources on Mark Diamond page is bias. Tamaraharon (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
According to WP:BIO which is the applicable notability guideline, an article needs to be supported by "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".
On the other hand, primary sources are explicitly allowed for articles even though they do not count for notability, per WP:PRIMARY: "Knowledge articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources".
I hope this is helpful.Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Article should be converted to a stub using only independent reliable sources. This justifies WP:Notability. Chris.lee auth (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)— Chris.lee auth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak Keep: Primary sources usage does not consent lack of notability. Profile has moderate recognition on gov website of Parliament of New South Wales. Subject has historical relevance.
Rpgea (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The opinion of experienced editors who were not canvassed here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Donald MacMillan (rugby union) (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 sources, and seems to have no real notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Known as "Ian" rather than Donald, which may assist your searches. Plenty of coverage on Trove and I've added some of them to the page. Got more results for the typo "Mc"Millan. Jevansen (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have a review of the new content additions. Also, please do not move an article that is the subject of an AFD discussion during the AFD. It confuses our editing tool, XFDcloser which doesn't understand why the article is at a different name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Was not aware of this. Jevansen (talk) Jevansen (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

2028 Northern Territory general 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)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Article only has one source, and it does not say anything about the election in 2028. CycloneYoris 03:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. Just a point of information, an AFD closer can not close a discussion with a decision to "Move" an article because that is an editing decision. So, if you want to Move this article, "vote" Keep and then have a Move discussion afterwards on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment Neutral on keeping the article, but just wanted to say that the suggestions of moving it to Next Northern Territory general election are misplaced. "Next" is used in election article titles when the date of the next election is uncertain. However, Northern Territory has fixed-term parliaments and the next election must take place in 2028, so the current title is correct. Number 57 01:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)



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:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_9#Category:Extinct_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia
Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_25#Category:Squares_and_ball_games

Australia-related Deletion Review

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

None at present


New Zealand

Air West Coast (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)

Cannot find a single ref that goes towards notability. I originally BLAR'd it to the article of the group that ran it, as it is mentioned there with a brief description. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP1E only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Alimetry Limited (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 don't see Alimetry Limited passing WP:NCORP. Unfortunately, I think I have declined this twice at AFC, yet the page creator would do a little improvement and resubmit. Following this way, I think it's wayward and not good to keep declining (even from another reviewer), when the article doesn't meet the minimum consideration, hence more participation would be good at AFD.

Quite a long article, source one is purely unreliable and it references the company's non notable product. The second one thebit.nz is also unreliable, and even though NZRS was edited years ago, I don't see the source's editorial integrity of this likely WP:BLOG. Source 7 didn't tell us about the "Gastric Alimetry", instead, about the effects of gastric disorders, which didn't even mention the product.

New Zealand International Business Awards (sources to a blog from a reliable source), the Arobia Trailblazer Innovation Grant, and Medtronic APAC innovation Challenge aren't notable awards per WP:NAWARDS, and same is applicable to the NZ Hi-Tech Awards. There also appear to be an over-detailed contents in the sections, "Technology" and "Clinical Research". Regulatory approvals doesn't justify notability. Safari Scribe 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Gareth Ward (author) (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, couldn't find much else online. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep the two press sources in the article seem pretty good. There's also this, this, this, all from a quick and non extensive search. His books have several reviews on Gale and Proquest which help him pass WP:NAUTHOR/ Also many interviews with RS. A pretty decent article could be written here, IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase 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)

Political party that existed for less than a year and advocated for a single issue. Only limited coverage, and it all appears to be from 2008, except for a single article about "the stranger parties of NZ's past and present" from 2018. This seems similar to how political candidates may receive limited coverage during an elecetion but are not considered notable. The article creator has reverted an attempt to redirect this page to Whenuapai#Reverting to Military Aerodrome and recent developments. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of political parties. I feel the inclusion anywhere else would be undue given how little there is about it. Whilst the Whenuapai air base has been a recurring topic in NZ politics, this party had no impact on it and there is an IP edit that suggests the founder of the party (and it's only member) doesn't want to be associated with it anymore. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Daveosaurus and Traumnovelle, I notice the section on that list specifically notes that it should be for notable parties. I would expect a non-notable party be ineligible for inclusion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Didn't notice that. Many of those parties listed are not notable by Knowledge's standards. If there is no suitable place to redirect/mention it at then deletion would be best. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
NCAaWAP seems notable enough for a list of unsuccessful parties, particularly since they've been outrageously successful in preventing that airport being built! If consensus firms around the parties list, then I'll change my proposed redirect target. Oblivy (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
The article is jocular about it. The party itself really had no impact. The commercial airport at Whenuapai has always been a terrible proposal unlikely to go through (estimated to cost around a billion just to move the military operations and other reasons relating to national defence that I can't mention on Knowledge). Traumnovelle (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for my attempt at jocularity. I'm happy to follow the consensus on redirect target, waiting to see if any other views emerge Oblivy (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete this is such a nothingburger I really don't think it even qualifies for merging. Maybe a merge to the single-issue politics page as per previous comment could make sense, but this is such a tiny thing I think it would be undue there. David Palmer//cloventt 20:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Single person single issue party. Was never registered to contest elections and only the founder contested a seat under that tikcet (without success). Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have three different Redirect/Merge target articles being suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Not even notable enough to go on a list of failed parties - given that it was never actually a registered party, just a name the one dude gave himself to look better on a ballot form. Absurdum4242 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
    Does it really matter if it's a non-registered party? Sure, there's this which says that at the time it was an unregistered party name. But we have the NZ Herald saying it's a party and this from the government registering the logo. In my view, the name is verifiable and that should be the end of it. Notability is lacking which is why I support merge. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
    It is when one of the other voting suggestions is “redirect to a list of parties” - there is an actual process to forming a political party in NZ, with steps and criteria to follow, none of which he managed to achieve. It’s like calling a lemonade stand your kids make a “company” because they drew a logo on the front - unless they legally incorporate, not a company. Don’t register as a party, not a party. Not a party, can’t be listed on a list of parties. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    Based on the information that this organization appears to be a single person who never registered it as a political party, if the organization is not notable, then I do not think the redirects to "Single-issue politics" or "List of political parties in New Zealand" would be appropriate. While the redirect I suggested to Whenuapai may be acceptable as there are a few mentions in newspapers, given the discussion since I filed this AfD, that is probably excessive as well. I now think simply deleting is the most appropriate. – notwally (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    The electoral commission registered their logo and listed it on a report called "REGISTER OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND LOGOS". What you say may make intuitive sense to you, but disregarding secondary sources in favor of our own opinions is OR. Oblivy (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


Categories / Templates / etc

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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

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

Elsewhere in Oceania

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Guam (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)

Non notable consulate. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

2030 United Nations Security Council 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)

Deleted in July via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

2028 United Nations Security Council 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)

Deleted in August via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

2029 United Nations Security Council 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)

Deleted in May via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The Senate Resolution and the House Resolution indicate that while very accomplished, this individual would receive run of the mill coverage of a typical mayor in the United States. Mpen320 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

for occasional archiving

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑