Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

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:

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|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.

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 Oceania.

Further information

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates

Whistleblowers Australia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Changeworld1984 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Tables

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and

WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a longstanding draft at User:Teratix/Australian rules football analytics which I really, really need to finish and move into mainspace at some point. I did a bit of searching for sources covering AFL Tables as part of my research, and it does get a mention in James Coventry's Footballistics (p. 265):

[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."

(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)

As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Breen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rugby BLP that fails

WP:SIGCOV that I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career never really kicked on to bring extended coverage, so not really enough to pass
WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Khalil Rahme

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian

WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: World Cup quarter finalist, several references (though more needed), suggesting player has had/having a career in Australia's first and second tier. Article needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played at the RLWC, nine sources, every line sourced.Fleets (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any
WP:SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Mitchell Mamary

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian

WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though he his semi pro with international caps, references given don't appear to suggest his career is notable, thus finding refs is unlikely. Mn1548 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Lambert

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the

notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Australia, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for
WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The citations you have added are a classic example of a
focus on a few excellent sources
.
Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.

Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.

Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.

Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.

Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.

The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.

– Teratix ₵ 07:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. – Teratix ₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.

On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Teratix ₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Australia Magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this meets

WP:GNG. Sources provided are primary/promotional in nature. Most substantial source I have been able to locate is this brief fluff interview with the editor. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Golf, and Australia. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have performed some searches earlier with the same result. It is very strange that one of the few remaining golf magazines in a large country does not appear to generate much in terms of independent sources describing it (I even checked press in the National Library). --Викидим (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Astbury

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability. Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes
WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations, albeit in a high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep Concur that it passes WP:Prof#C1, and Astbury was quite prolific in the 1980's and 1990's so online sources may be hard to come by. Perhaps seeking offline sources to better establish notability might be an option? While I agree being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't "add to" notability, there is a reason why she is there, and that is for the significant contribution that she has made in her chosen field. I'd also like to add that it is disheartening to see articles of notable women being nominated for deletion, particularly when Wikipedia continues to battle the issue of gender bias when it comes to biographical articles about women 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)— 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think that being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women does add to notability but, by itself, does not establish it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Blair Kurtz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played only 3 first grade games. Only sources provided are primary. Fails

WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are databases or primary sources. Unless more references can be found current coverage isn't sufficient. Mn1548 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Filiga

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His first grade career was a mere 11 minutes in total. Fails

WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has several secondary sources, and by the looks of what is written, he went on to have a career in Australia's second tier. Don't think failing in the NRL is sounds to be classEd as not notable. Article could probably be expanded. Mn1548 (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lette

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer

WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy
WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Zivit Inbar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreliable information. No RS. Fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Israel, and Australia. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphan article that looks like a CV.
WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of notability, this is just promotional. Fails
WP:NOTCV. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: PROMO with no sources outside of PR items or lists. Even my searches only turn up PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for reliable sources and found no evidence of notability. Marokwitz (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per norm Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Looks just like a CV, clearly intended as promotional. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is
WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: not notable. TarnishedPath^talk 08:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about the topic. Chekidalum (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: promotional material without any evidence of
WP:GNG. Contributor892z (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Tayler Kane

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article with an IMDb external link. Pre-wiki coverage was hard to find, even a cursory Google search today shows nothing. Although the actor seems to have played several minor roles in notable shows, there's no significant coverage of him that I could find. If printed sources exist, one may list them. X (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. X (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Cahalane

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Australian

WP:SPORTCRIT. All I really found were transactional announcements (2015, 2017). JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: Can't imagine a player with 93 appearances for one club and had apparently played for others has so little written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:SPORTBASIC. Unable to find anything other than routine coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Beatbox Kitchen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NCORP. See table below. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios	Lengthy discussion of Rashid before interview begins		coverage is of Rashid, not the restaurant	✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/beatbox-kitchen-opens-brunswick	? Unclear whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content	? Unclear		? Unknown
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/food-trucks-ready-to-burn-rubber-to-your-nearest-park-20200925-p55zcj.html			Bare mention of the restaurant, article is about COVID	✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/food-truck-fitzroy-beatbox-kitchen-opens-second-shop	? Unsure whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content	? Unclear		? Unknown
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/beatbox-kitchens-raph-rashid-makes-the-ultimate-aussie-burger/news-story/554135474e0b453ae601670b470d46c9	? Tabloid	~	Bare mention of the restaurant	✘ No
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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hey, GMH Melbourne, I'm not as familiar with AUS sources as you probably are, but to me those don't all look like simple straight interviews. Many sources will speak to a representative when covering any sort of business, and quoting those representatives doesn't turn a story into an interview. I feel like multiple of them are actually talking about the business in their own voices more than they're quoting the representatives. Can you elaborate on why you feel each of these doesn't represent independent coverage? Are these sources known for sponsored content?

For me the Vice piece probably fails to support notability of the restaurant more because its four long paragraphs before the interview portion are about the proprietor rather than about the restaurant. I would actually tend to accept that source as support for notability for the proprietor. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the table, the other sources are not just interviews, but also promo pieces or very promotional. A promo piece definitely would not count as a RS. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I understand what you mean. If we take what you have said into account, I'd say that The Age article could count towards GNG. Broadsheet is a food/travel magazine it would be hard to say whether or not they are totally independent of the subject. The Herald Sun article is a total promo piece with a burger created exclusively for heraldsun.com.au which leads me to doubt the independence of the broadsheet articles. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...I don't see promotionalism of the restaurant in that piece. That's more the herald promoting itself, which all newspapers do to some extent -- a story 'exclusive to the NYT' is not the NYT promoting the subject of their story but the NYT promoting themselves. So a burger created exclusively for the herald is really just the herald saying, "Aren't you glad you're reading the herald, because otherwise you wouldn't get this recipe!" But that said, again the piece is primarily about Rashid and Chang, not about Beatbox. So again I'd say not sigcov of this article subject.

The Broadsheet articles are about the restaurant. I generally like to see different sources, but these are at least written by different people at the Broadsheet. But that's still local coverage. The Age is probably not significant coverage, it's a bare mention of BeatBox in a story about food trucks during COVID. And the Vice is not about the restaurant.

I think on balance I'm landing on Delete. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While current sentiment is leaning towards delete, giving this another seven days to assess if further input continues to lean that way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this Vice article which is no doubt independent, sigcov, and has depth:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios

This coverage of it shutting down which nevertheless is a secondary source that provides critical commentary of its life:

https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/beatbox-kitchens-brunswick-burger-shop-is-closing-down-20210715-h1x5me.html

This, combined with the dubious but in my opinion passable Broadsheet coverage meets

WP:GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I wouldn't say the vice article is total independent, the vast majority of it is an interview with the owner, and even then I would say that it is based more on the owner rather than Beatbox Kitchen itself. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Vice piece is already in the article, and as GMH says, it's not about the subject. It's about the owner. Valereee (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but consider a new BLP article on Raph Rashid, for which the Vice article would be one principle source (two more would be necessary). The Vice article is in the source assessment table, which makes the point that the article is about Rashid and not about Beatbox Kitchen. We don't seem to have a BLP article on Raph Rashid, but that might be what is notable, not the burger truck. The article on the closing down must be approached with more caution. It is a discursive primary source inasmuch as it is reporting the closure. Discursive because it provides some background. The background is relevant, the occasion for the source is not, being primary. See
WP:NCORP, but again, we have one good source for a BLP. If the BLP existed, redirect would be reasonable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the chain fails sigcov but the owner could have an article on themselve. X (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rox De Luca

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes

WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Italy, and Australia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please let me know what is missing to make notability.louibu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Louibu (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes
WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute significant critical attention, nor is the subject's work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction. Star Mississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
Source assessment table:
https://www.roxdeluca.com/images/Gleaning_for_plastics_defying_wastefulness_by_Paul_Allatson_2020_.pdf		This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article ( WP:SELFPUBLISH ).	See WP:SELFPUBLISH .	✘ No
https://www.roxdeluca.com/index.php/artist-cv-curriculum-de-arte	This is the artist's CV.	See WP:ABOUTSELF .	See WP:ABOUTSELF .	✘ No
https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/sea-of-plastic-an-artists-quest-to-address-ocean-pollution			This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist.	✔ Yes
https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object?keyword=anna%20de%20luca&searchIn=artistOrCulture&searchIn=title&searchIn=medium&uniqueId=127158			Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother.	✘ No
https://gunyah.blogspot.com/search?q=rox+de+luca	This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog.	See WP:ABOUTSELF .	See WP:ABOUTSELF .	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/features/artists-giving-materials-a-new-life-2512531/			~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work.	~ Partial
Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193.			Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book.	✔ Yes
Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). "Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca". Eyeline. 35: 22–24.			Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview.	✔ Yes
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/45398/2/The%20Transcultural%20Edge.pdf			A paragraph mention on the subject and their work.	✔ Yes
Allatson, Paul (1996). "Men and Mettle". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26.			Offline source, accepting in good faith.	✔ Yes
https://www.gq.com.au/style/trends/the-style-download-15324/image-gallery/a1114634ed7db996d49f80ed40e73536			Very short mention of the subject and one of their works.	✔ Yes
https://www.projectvortex.org/	This is a project with which the artist is associated.		Name doesn't even feature in the source.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/reviews/review-deakin-university-contemporary-small-sculpture-award-2018-256473-2360787/			Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention.	✘ No
https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/07/the-inaugural-ravenswood-australian-womens-art-prize--finalists			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/sponsored-content/turning-waste-into-art-is-a-community-affair-261135-2368551/			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.woollahragallery.com.au/Artists/Artist-in-Residence/Rox-de-Luca	This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject.		See WP:ABOUTSELF .	✘ No
https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2192259/deakin_university_art_collection_artists.pdf			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
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}}.

Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that

WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO

WP:BASIC is marginally met. X (talk) 13:03, 28 April 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. Consensus is against keeping. From among the ATD proposals, the redirect to the list of floods can't be implemented because the topic is not mentioned there, and the merger to the locality has little support. Sandstein 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Clarkson floods

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event does not meet

lasting effect. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. No lasting impact to meet
WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be the sort of event with enduring notability. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant event that took place in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.11.78 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "significant" is not a criterion for notability. You need to demonstrate how it meets
WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

What is significant about it?
Will people care about it in ten years? – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Clarkson, Western Australia per nom's rationale. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Not a particularly notable natural disaster. AusLondonder (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, as with many unfortunate incidents or minor disasters, relevance is typically limited to the affected region/country. Without
WP:LASTING effect and therefore, cannot be adjusted to be notable. I wouldn't object a condensed version being merged into Clarkson, Western Australia. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I object as well to merging with Clarkson, Western Australia. The floods covered more than just Clarkson. The article claims that Clarkson, Butler, Joondalup, Currambine, Ridgewood and Mindarie were all flooded or at least received warnings. I still think a straight up delete would be the best course of action. Steelkamp (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I also oppose merge. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was more thinking that I would not have any particular concerns if it were mentioned it in an article relevant to the region, rather than a full-on entire merge (hence "condensed version"). I am not familiar with the geography of the region, but appreciate that if it affected multiple places, then mentioning in only one article would not always be appropriate (although the title of the article itself mentions Clarkson, so this seemed to be the worst affected I would imagine).

Fundamentally, my preference is in agreement to delete, which I !voted for. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floods in Australia - I agree that its not notable on its own, and that it shouldn't be redirected/merged with the Clarkson article, but there is another reasonable redirect target --DannyS712 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even mentioned on that list, and why should it be? It's not a very significant flood. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 11 days after the flood and no one is talking about it anymore. It has been out of the news since 1 day after the flood. This flood simply is not very signficant. Steelkamp (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect And add to Floods in Australia, per DannyS712.12.11.109.231 (talk) 10:37, 23 April 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.

Irie Papuni

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian

WP:SPORTCRIT. Given his age and ongoing career, draftification seems to be a good ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Think there's enough in the article, plus a search for a weak keep here. Draftification is a suitable
WP:ATD if deemed not also .Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Maree

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian

WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rugby League footballer who played for Lebanon at the Rugby League World. 8 sources.Fleets (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources has to be addressed. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to
WP:ATD. On that page, one will find his club and cap count at the time (I don't know why rugby doesn't put DoB as well, like football squads). @JTtheOG, note that several other of the Lebanese 2021 World Cup pages are of the exact same build as Josh Maree. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Played in a team that got to a WC QF, nothing is written about his club career, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No evidence of the requisite GNG coverage, merely playing in some league does not meet any notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shazza McKenzie

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy under G4 again, requiring a third AfD nomination. The second AfD fell foul of this and FWIW it was deleted anyway. And nothing has changed. This fails WP:GNG. The coverage remains trivial and doesn't establish notability. It relies too heavily on Cage Match results which - while reliable - do not establish notability. More sources are needed as before and it appears they don't exist even after I tagged this article in early 2022. As this is the third (possible) deletion I would recommend salting if it does go the same way although sending it into draft mode I would agree to. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Wrestling, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I have now added several reliable secondary sources to the article, some that are generally reliable (
Sydney Morning Herald) and some that are considered industry-specific reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter), that help confirm the notability of the subject. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Sydney Morning Herald is fine, but I don't see any other sourcing. What's used in the article is match results and I can't find anything that's in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even that source was a decade ago, if they're been no media coverage in the years since, I don't think we have notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included in the article are a number of recent sources, one being Sports Illustrated, discussing her move from Australia to the United States in March 2023. There are also a number of recently articles such as Hercanberra, Fightful and the now added Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Slam! Wrestling and Sirensports which focus on her specifically.

Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Analysing sources:Source one [1] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second [2] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three [3] is still unreliable. Source 4 [4] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five [5] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six [6] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that. [18] is statistics of Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second source, Slam! Wrestling, is a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.

Cagematch.net is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources for match results, which is what it's being used for.

You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.

I've now added an hour long interview from
Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

You are failing to acknowledge the fact the

prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has few appearances on NXT,[19][20] Impact/TNA,[21] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),[22] and ROH.[23] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,[24] her championships and titles,[25] and Mann Mann (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.

As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.

Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide
WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Per
WP:SIGCOV

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.

Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in
WP:SIGCOV
(The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).

Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable

The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear[27] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in
WP:SIGCOV
. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.

This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this [28] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards
WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam![29]
, Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.

Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes

Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.

I've also now added both a 2017 interview conducted by Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer Newsletter to the article as well as a 2019 interview conducted by Mike Sempervive also of Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Alvarez is notable, the platform is notable and the interviews are significant coverage. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I indented your comment properly. Please indent this way in the future as it avoids confusion. Aside from that everything that you said there again seeks to push a reliable source above the GNG and SIGCOV tests. Short - by definition - is trivial. The comparison between a list of wrestlers and a list of songs is completely irrelevant. Dedicated coverage does not equal significant coverage, because dedicated and still be shirt and therefore trivial. The Sempervive interview is on You Tube and I will remove that. You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever. The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of
WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). Bottom line - a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability. It may add to it but it can not be relied upon. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever.

~~Please show me a guideline which states this.~~
WP:Youtube and Wikipedia:Video links make clear that Youtube as a platform is not a problem in-of-itself; Youtube videos may be cited as long as they're from a verifiable, reliable, secondary source. Inauguration of Donald Trump, for example, cites several youtube videos attributed to reliable secondary sources such as PBS and CNN. Belle Delphine
, a good-rated BLP article, has an entire subsection in its references dedicated to youtube citations.

The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). .

It's not SelfPub. Selfpub is when John Smith writes something for JohnSmith.blog, a website Smith control and runs themself. Slam! Wrestling is an Independent reliable secondary source per
WP:ABOUTSELF
statements, which is what it was used for.

a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability

No one is arguing it is on it's own. It's to be taken together with all the other sources being provided, obviously. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The correct citation criteria I am applying (to answer your struck out request) is
WP:YOUTUBE
unless certain criteria is fulfilled. The citation you gave doesn't do it. The comparison to the Trump inauguration is irrelevant because that isn't a BLP. Anyway - you have the other source so there's no need for this second one anyway. The article on Slam is selfpub because the subject wrote it. That's the only criteria required to breach that guideline. The platform is not relevant. And finally you are arguing the list to prove notability - because you pressed substantive coverage in it.

This has been done to death now and I suggest we wait for others to come in, now that it has been relisted again - and either agree with me or agree with you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will take discussion of this specific citation-issue to Talk:Shazza McKenzie because it's detracting from the purpose of this thread. But it is in fact important whether or not it is included in the article because it's an example of significant coverage, which is obvious important to a deletion discussion thread. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm new here and this should be deleted because it's an ad! What she's done etc etc. Is this allowed? If it is I'm sorry - I didn't know Wikipedia allowed ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're new and you should use four tildes to sign your posts. No -
WP:PROMO prohibits advertising. It's an interesting observation the lack of content on her career aside from match result does in fact appear promotional. but I'll be neutral on this pending other input. Also I assume this is a Delete vote. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I never heard of a tilde. Had to look it up and I can't find it on my keyboard. Yes this is a delete vote and thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tilde is in the capitalised position to the left of the 1 key. I've added Delete to your first comment in this edit to help you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it! Cool! Thanks! 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brazell

Kyle Brazell (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian
WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2, both from the same publication. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future. Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at
WP:ATDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I think 1 and 2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article. These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing. In terms of SNGs, it meets
WP:NCRIC as well. Robo^Cric Let's chat 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The South Australian Cricket Association and Cricket Australia are not independent of the subject. The former directly administers the South Australia cricket team that he plays on, and is affiliated with the latter. Given his young age, I support draftification as an ATD, as well as the redirect suggested by Rugbyfan22. JTtheOG (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources. Those contain useful information, so I linked those. However, apart from these two, I guess this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance. I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep. Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect. Thanks. Robo^Cric Let's chat 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~, not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future.
Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one. AA (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers. Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there. If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To better summarize the sources in question, there are a couple sentences of coverage here, though it's mostly quotes, and four-ish sentences of coverage here. Both are from The Advertiser so they should be counted as one source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

None at present

Australia-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Shortcut
WP:AFD/NZ

New Zealand

Sports broadcasting contracts in New Zealand

Sports broadcasting contracts in New Zealand (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:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and New Zealand. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Horton

Glen Horton (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 rugby player, fails
WP:SPORTCRIT. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league, Rugby union, and New Zealand. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets
WP:SPORTCRIT: see here, here, and here. He played in the New Zealand Māori team that won the 2008 IRB Pacific Nations Cup. He made 79 appearances for Hawke's Bay, Otago, and Southland in provincial rugby, 21 appearances for the Highlanders in Super Rugby, played 5 matches for NZ under-21, and 4 for New Zealand Māori. 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Paora (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Think there's just about enough here for a
WP:GNG pass, given that there is more than likely similar offline coverage in local NZ media from when he played. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Bruno Marques (architect)

Bruno Marques (architect) (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 independent sources given that show notability. Of the links provided one is to his staff biography and the other doesn't mention him at all. All I found were items that show he exists but don't show notability. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed the name of the articles author, Brunomarkes. A variant of the subjects name. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not eligible for speedy deletion due to the article probably being written by the same guy, serving as a promotion, and not going through AfC but instead being created by a page move? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing stopping an editor from moving a draft to main space. I didn't feel that any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applied. So easier to go with AfD and then if it is re-posted it can be G4. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, Germany, Portugal, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:ARCHITECT. Self-written bio, reads like self-promotion. No details of individual accomplishments. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Peach Boxing

Peach Boxing (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A boxing gym business. Zero references on the gym/business. All of them are about events related to boxers. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 15:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Boxing, and New Zealand. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Peach Traumnovelle (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Peach. There's a lack of coverage about the gym itself. The three New Zealand boxing gym of the year awards were given by a blogger, so it shows no significance to me. It seems like Isaac Peach is the most significant part of the gym and much of the two articles seem to overlap about fighters he has trained. It's possible that the individual article may not be WP notable either, but that's a discussion for another time. Papaursa (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Filiga

Karl Filiga (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)

His first grade career was a mere 11 minutes in total. Fails
WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has several secondary sources, and by the looks of what is written, he went on to have a career in Australia's second tier. Don't think failing in the NRL is sounds to be classEd as not notable. Article could probably be expanded. Mn1548 (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kauvaka Kaivelata

Kauvaka Kaivelata (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand
WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's a few bits in the article and in a search to suggest coverage is increasing, especially with the players career just starting to kick off. I'd imagine there will be a couple more bits coming in the near future, so perhaps could be draftifyed, but I think worth keeping and expanding as likely the draft will just be deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon

Imre Vallyon (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)

As per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
None of the preceding apply in this case and almost all the sources in the article are not independent. There are almost no reviews of his work and the awards he has won are not notable. The only significant coverage is of his legal issues. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, Hungary, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Stuff article certainly establishes that he's notable, although the focus of it is on his child molestation convictions. The award from the Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust might be notable given that it's in conjunction with the New Zealand Society of Authors, which is definitely notable.-Gadfium (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the Stuff article establishes his notability as an author. It's mostly about his convictions as you said. I'm struggling to find any reviews or analysis of his work. Even if the award is given in conjunction with the NZSA I don't think it's enough to confer notability. Do you think it is? It might also be worth noting that Vallyon himself is a member of the New Zealand Society of Authors, a membership he pays for.~~~ Ynsfial (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium is not arguing that he is notable as an author. Gadfium is talking about GNG. Schwede 66 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood, sorry. What other sources do we have for GNG then? We would need multiple. Will we be establishing his notability as a criminal if not as an author? or as a spiritual guru and leader? The only significant coverage in general seems to be that Stuff article, which focuses on his history of sexual assault. It's not unusual for a local newspaper to cover local criminals and crimes.

The article consists of primarily sourced biographical information, a list of books with no analysis or reviews and a mention of a minor prize. If we were to remove the Scoop article, a local paper detailing his criminal convictions, what would his notability be based on GNG or otherwise? Ynsfial (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 6 is a book review in a RS, this in a Seattle newspaper discusses the author and his work [30], should be at basic notability. Discussed here [31] in a RS from New Zealand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider Horror News Net a reliable source, see How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net? and How to Expedite your Film Review? Their About us states:
"HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."

It's used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of articles, so this should be brought up on the WP:RSN.

The review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:
"Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone." Mooonswimmer 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks
WP:GNG, but it's all I could find. The two awards he's won are minor and of debatable notability. Mooonswimmer 03:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories / Templates / etc

NZ proposed deletions (
WP:PROD
)

Pekatahi (via WP:PROD
on 5 February 2024)

Raes Junction (via WP:PROD on 4 February 2024)

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

Elsewhere in Oceania

List of soccer clubs in the Marshall Islands

List of soccer clubs in the Marshall Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page has a single source, and none of these are legitimate clubs. They are only teams that happened to be registered with that name, and seemingly never operated at any capacity outside of amateur tournaments that took place years ago. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look like a
WP:HOAX. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I wouldn't say hoax- there are supporting sources at RSSSF, this is just not notable at all. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I was mistaken. I thought that when you said "legitimate clubs" that you meant they didn't actually exist. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, these teams aren't hoaxes, but this sounds more equivalent to your local softball league sponsored by taverns and breweries in the United States more than a group of even semi-pro teams and they're there for fun, not glory. Nate • (chatter) 20:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Or redirect to
Football in the Marshall Islands. Football is completely incipient there, just like Niue, FS Micronesia or Palau. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I would consider this as village club teams that do not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While these clubs do exist, they are too insignificant for coverage. Samoht27 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Football in the Marshall Islands as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Iftikhar A. Ayaz

Iftikhar A. Ayaz (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:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Clearly meets
WP:GNG. @AusLondonder: Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting
WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

no articles
proposed for deletion
at this time

for occasional archiving

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Oceania&oldid=1220815088"

Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates

Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations

Australia-related Miscellany for deletion

Australia-related Templates for Deletion

Australia-related Categories for Discussion

Australia-related Deletion Review

New Zealand

Categories / Templates / etc

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Elsewhere in Oceania

Proposed deletions

NZ proposed deletions (
WP:PROD
)