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.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Oceania. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates

List of populated places in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, Australia, and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It makes sense to have a list of populated places by state but not for such a small entity as these islands. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Abdo

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

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

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

References

List of settlements on Christmas Island

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Next Australian federal election

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 01:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@GarbageKarate, There is another article in draftspace is the problem. TarnishedPath^talk 01:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, Happy for this one to be deleted then if the one in draftspace can be amended to more current information if it makes things easier! GarbageKarate (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GarbageKarate, if you were the only editor of the article I would suggest tagging it with {{Db-g7}} but unfortanetly it has now been edited a bit by two other editors. TarnishedPath^talk 01:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, What would you suggest we do in this case? Should we wait for the discussion to run its course, and then let the article be deleted? Apologies — I wasn’t aware there was already a draft in draftspace at the time. GarbageKarate (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GarbageKarate, I think we have to allow the discussion to run its course. Given the article has been edited by other editors, those editors may disagree with my assessment of WP:TOOSOON. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Anthony Chaffee

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Rugby league. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable, and has somewhat fringe views anyway. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Guardian is the only RS in the article. No notability. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no SIGCOV apart from partial coverage in the Guardian piece. --hroest 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and not enough RS coverage. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article by a single purpose account. This is sorted under rugby league, it may be rugby union. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me it looks like the Guardian is the only RS here. Also this article reads as being very promotional and not encyclopedic. Fails WP:GNG Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Petric

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

Subject doesn't quite pass WP:SPORTCRIT and a cursory search yielded nothing useful for WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject appears to meet the WP:GNG with sources like [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]] Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources above. Swimming is also notable in Australia usually. Svartner (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that this should be kept now, the sources Lets run brought up (which didn’t show up in my BEFORE) plus the subject winning a non-qualifying Olympic gold medal. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ClubHouze

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Dance, Music, and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2024 Bankstown City Lions season

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

This football season may be too far down the pyramid to meet WP:GNG. Almost all of the players are redlinks and all of the coverage seems to be primary sources, including Facebook. Any relevant information here could be put on 2024 Football NSW season; having said that, there is no prose to begin with. C 679 04:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Australia. C 679 04:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 04:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Wildberger

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Wildberger or his employer have put out some heavily promotional and dubiously accurate press releases about his publications and the latest one that this is based on is just that, an inaccurate press release that some credulous sources have picked up (for a long but unusable on Wikipedia discussion see https://mathstodon.xyz/@johncarlosbaez/114448643735756913). It does not contribute to WP:PROF notability and does not constitute in-depth independent sourcing. Repeating its promotional claims, which are not supported by his publication nor by mainstream mathematics, cannot be the basis of a good article. For another thing, although the paper itself is not out of the mainstream (neither in content nor in its publication venue), the claims made for it in the press release and copied into our article ("solving the world's oldest problem!") are WP:FRINGE and non-mainstream, as are Wildberger's own expressed personal beliefs. Fringe sources require mainstream balance to achieve properly neutral coverage and we don't have that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia, Canada, California, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as in status quo. I do not think that the regurgitated press release from unreliable or semireliable sources adds much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I edited the article. The reference to the book is removed. Wildberger is in the news for a recently published article on another subject than the controversial book. I added multiple newssources. I removed promotional claim. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think removing the reference to the one indisputably-notable accomplishment of Wildberger, his book, is an improvement to the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with David Eppstein. Without the book there is zero notability here, one paper that was published a few days ago is definitely not a pass of any notability criteria. Notability might be via a math paper which had 200 cites in other refereed articles in its first year following publication (an illustrative number). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect All of the sources about the recent paper look to be pretty much trash. Newsweek has been a worthless rag for what, ten, twelve years now? And the rest are random websites basically reprinting a press release. The only actually noteworthy thing he's done has been the book, so this should be a pointer to the book. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect please. No need to feed into any of the sensation-mongering. Rschwieb (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including or excluding Norman Wildberger from Wikipedia has been, for some reason, a long-running dispute, lasting many years. I once, years ago, created an article with his name as the title. It was quickly deleted. I was surprised but decided there was no reason for me to pursue the matter. After all this time here is the issue again. I know Wildberger published a paper on some extension of Catalan Numbers. Maybe the paper is a genuine contribution to mathematics and maybe it will turn out not to be. However, why is Wildberger's inclusion such a hot topic? I really have no idea, but I wonder if there is a vendetta involved. Dratman (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment led me indirectly to recall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman J. Wildberger. It was long ago and before the more recent publicity both for the current material and for his work on Babylonian mathematics, so I don't think it should be taken as precedent, but it does shed light on how long this has been going on and on the rationale for the redirection of your version, at least:

Creation of an article on "rational trigonometry": 2005 (at that time not focused on the book but on the mathematics it described)
Original creation of biography under "Norman J. Wildberger" (still visible in the history of that title): 2006 by Overlord~enwiki, immediately disputed as non-neutral
Rational trigonometry tagged as problematic based on using only the book as a source: 2009
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman J. Wildberger: 2009. I did not take part in the debate, but performed the merge that it called for.
Redirect "Norman Wildberger" pointing to same article created, 2010
"Norman Wildberger" split off as a separate biography, 2011 by Dratman, restored as a redirect by me, since at that time we had a recent consensus not to keep the two separate.
Meanwhile the article on rational trigonometry was long problematic and was tagged as having only one source (Wildberger's book) in 2009
Rational trigonometry acquired more tags including one for notability in 2013. More sources including book reviews were added, and this caused some edit-warring as editor Paul White pushed to remove any criticism from the main part of the article and link it only at the end. After more edit-warring by single-purpose accounts, SohCahToaBruz proposed that it be deleted in 2013 but Arxiloxos removed the prod as it was clearly not uncontroversial and had a previous deletion discussion.
In 2015 there was again a repeated attempt by some anonymous editors to remove critical material from the lead, and disputes over the placement of this material continued until at least 2018 when I semi-protected the article (allowing only long-term editors to change it for the following year)
In 2020 I took the initiative to change it from an article about rational trigonometry to an article about the book itself. I believed then and now that the book is clearly notable as the subject of multiple independent reliably-published reviews, regardless of whether or not any other related topics are separately notable. (I happen to have a copy of the book prominent on my office bookshelf but I hope the article reflects only the views of the published reviewers and not my own.)
Since then there have still been some disputes but overall the book article has been much more stable than the rational trigonometry article was.
Another creation of a separate biography (by another editor), restored as a redirect, 2022.

I don't know whether this history sheds any light on why this has been such a matter of dispute, but I hope it helps. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Guild of Music & Speech

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Education, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTrang,

thanks for flagging this. Have briefly revised the page with some further secondary sources to demonstrate some notability. Very best, Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My source-quality scanner picks up "possibly AI-generated slop", flagging all references except 1, 4, 6. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant if ChatGPT is merely used assess the quality of secondary sources? The article has a clear chain in its edit history and is obviously not AI-produced. Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Night in Texas

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

Seems to fail WP:NMUSIC. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:NMUSIC. Examples of WP:RSMUSIC secondary coverage include a staff bio on Allmusic [4], album review in Ox-Fanzine [5], a Metal Hammer review [6], and a Distorted Sound review [7]. ResonantDis_tortion 19:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough coverage. Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Australians Party

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only two mentions in Crikey ([8], [9]). toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The best I could find was a couple of sentences in the Courier Mail [10]. Can't find anything approaching SIGCOV. I suppose we could redirect to List of historical political parties in Australia where it has an entry, but I'm not convinced that list should really be including non-notable entries anyway. MCE89 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it received a rounding error of the vote. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough sources to establish WP:NCORP, neither in the article, or online. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Kruger

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 05:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 05:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I'm curious to know on what grounds you think this page is worthy of deletion - this is someone who has decades of relevant experience ARealWorm (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm curious to know why you don't think this person is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia- they have decades worth of relevant experience and engagement in the Australian industry and are now head of the Media Diversity Australia ARealWorm (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not meeting notability due to a lack of independent sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 5 is the only independent sourcing about this person. I don't find any other articles that could be used for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think it's close. I agree that source 5 is the best source, and it's an article largely focused on the subject that was published in one of Australia's newspapers of record. But source 4 is also independent, significant coverage in a very reputable newspaper. I think you could easily make the case that those two sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. But both are very similar routine staffing announcements (one says she is joining ABC Radio Canberra, the other says she is now leaving), and feature a very high volume of quotes. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I don't think I really see the necessary depth in those two sources to demonstrate notability. MCE89 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments - however there are more sources there now - please review ARealWorm (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like any edits have been made to the article since I left my comment here. What additional sources are you referring to? MCE89 (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Totally unharmful to have an article Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Australia. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging those who participated in the previous AFD/DRV: @Commander Keane, Spartaz, Robert McClenon, Deepfriedokra, OwenX, Asilvering, Alpha3031, DotesConks, MCE89, लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, GMH Melbourne, Darkm777, and Eluchil404:; apologies if I have missed anyone. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source analysis provided by Robert McClenon in the previous discussion shows that WP:NCORP has not been met. --Enos733 (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. Using ProQuest via WP:TWL will show the fulltext of relevant newspaper articles. The sign up is instant and seamless, you need 6 months/500 edits/10 in last month for access I think. Try searching "Quintessential Equity". From memory, the oldest article from The Australian in 2013 is probably superior to any used thus far, including the fifteen suggested in the previous AfD. It would be great if editors could quote bits of NCORP or content policies in this discussion. I don't know how I would be able to understand the formation, investment strategies and development of those strategies of a company just by reading "routine coverage" in independent, reliable newspaper sources. Unfortunately I don't have any more time to devote to this process, but I would be wary of the analysis previously provided by Robert McClenon.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Delete in previous discussion). While TNT was appropriate for the prior version, the new version is acceptable and has national coverage in Australia. 🄻 🄰 13:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My opinion that the company passes WP:NCORP hasn't changed since the previous AfD. And thanks to Commander Keane for their work on cleaning up the article. Linking the sources I presented in the previous AfD again for reference: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. And as Commander Keane notes, there are even more good sources from The Australian, the Australian Financial Review and others on Proquest. MCE89 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Commander Keane says:Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. I did, and see three sources, not four. When I look at the sources, doing what a reader of the encyclopedia who wants to verify the content will do, I run into the Australian Financial Review paywall. I didn't try to follow the instructions that Keane says are seamless, because a reader won't be able to follow those instructions. In particular view of the history of conflict of interest editing, good-faith proponents should have some respect for the concerns of the editors who first objected to a spammy article and now object to an article with one old but significant source and two old invisible sources.

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

@Robert McClenon As I am sure you are aware, there is absolutely no requirement that sources be non-paywalled in order to satisfy WP:V. In fact, WP:V explicitly saysDo not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. I am more than happy to send you PDFs of any of the sources currently used in the article or any of the other sources I linked above (which I will add to the article as well) if you wish to verify them for yourself. But insisting that all readers should be able to access sources has absolutely no basis in policy. If that was the case, sources like the New York Times and the majority of academic journal articles could not be used for establishing notability either, since many readers will encounter a paywall. But policy is clear that sources should not be rejected just because some readers may not be able to access them. MCE89 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did say I planned to review the sources in more detail if it ever got relisted, so I suppose I better get on with it before this expires. Starting with the best and clearest examples selected by MCE from the previous AFD:

Overall, I'm not really convinced the sources meet NCORP at this point, but I will be adding the other 8 of 15 to my assessment table later, before looking for, e.g., that 2013 The Australian article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, that took a bit more out of me than I expected (hence the long break as well), so I don't think I'll be looking for any more sources yet. But, overall, I don't think the available sources quite clear what we want to for WP:NCORP, though there are a few I might be convinced are valid, like the Visy article by Lenaghan or WorkSafe by Johanson. I'd be happier if the three best sources more clearly featured direct and in-depth information (better than either of those two) about the company that also meets the second half of ORGIND though, so at the moment I'm still leaning towards a delete, or back to draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete based on the source analysis above and the fact that the article is basically devoid of useful information, except that company bought property X and sold it for Y dollars. --hroest 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are finely balanced on the keep/delete axis and I would rather not close as another no-consensus given the recent history. I would particularly like to hear from User:Commander Keane, User:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, and User:MCE89, if they are willing, as to their views on the source analysis User:Alpha3031 has been kind enough to perform and whether they maintain their keep !votes in its light.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.
- Article I mentioned above (@User:Alpha3031): "'Quinn won't yield on incentives' Brown, Greg. The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T.. 22 Aug 2013: 33" [26] (hopefully that TWL link works) was the article I was talking about. It is not groundbreaking, just better or equal to the others.
- Source searching: There may be more, who knows. It must be exhausting to review all sources presented, it may be easier to browse through the better ones and evaluate them. The CEO puff piece (#5 in the table above) was a newspaper's blog/website according ProQuest, the evaluation was inevitable.
- Passing comment: I said in the DRV that notability guides are about guessing if an article meets content policies, but I can see it is also something of a "I don't like it" stamp. That's fine, it is just frustrating to me that if this gets deleted I will be the only one with access to the information. Particularly the paywalled stuff. Newspapers showed some interest beyond casual buy/sell mentions. There is good stuff across various sources and we can put together an article, but we don't want to.
- Ponderance: This is the silly "other stuff exists" argument but I saw Michael Tritter (a minor character on a TV show) on the Main page. We like the source coverage there apparently. We are the encyclopedia of 2000s American TV shows but not of 2000s Australian businesses.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think ORGIND and NORG in general has been tightening in response to spam over the years, and there is an argument that we could have gone too far, but at the moment the balance is a considerably stricter standard than other topic areas which probably deletes some articles which are probably not too spammy but still probably lets a lot of spam through. Hard balance to strike. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tables above focus on certain attributes of a source but omit two vital elements for NCORP criteria which are easy to overlook if the focus is on GNG only - in-depth and "independent content" about the company. Rules out stuff like regurgitated announcements and advertorials, a good source will have in-depth independent analysis/commentary/etc. None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺17:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to Alpha3031, I didn't spot your coverage of the 2013 article in the middle of your table. It is nearly all co-founder quotes.
I think HighKing's point may be summed up by the final part of WP:ORGIND:Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation.... I accept that from what I have seen, no journalist has sat down and done this properly (as reflected in the table above). There is public interest in the company (hence the sustained coverage), there is enough to create a useful article (I personally found interesting coverage going beyond triviality) but perhaps the overarching concern is that a neutral article cannot be written without thorough journalistic opinion, analysis and investigation? I can empathise with the fear of being overrun with articles and this is a reasonable argument.
The strength of Wikipedia can be in bringing sources together to cover a topic, but the golden nugget exposé source for this company may not exist. It is hard for me to accept the deletion of knowledge that has value. Commander Keane (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the source analysis by Alpha3031 is extremely reasonable. I am still of the opinion that enough of the sources meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND to satisfy NCORP, but I think reasonable minds may differ on precise interpretations of those guidelines for some of these sources. I've summarised my reasoning for three of the sources that we agree are among the most promising, plus this new one I found, in the table below.

MCE89 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE89, all of those sources are based on company announcements. Sometimes it is obvious, such as when the article directly attributes the information as having originated from the company ("announced", "confirmed", etc). Also next time, might be worthwhile checking to see if the "story" is covered by another publication and carries the same information - if so, you'd have to agree that for something to contain "independent content" (as per ORGIND) then the article has to have something kinda unique. So this source isn't "independent" because, on the same day, this entirely "different" article has the exact same information. Similarly, this article mirrors the Sydney Morning Herald article. HighKing⁺⁺15:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s just not true at all. The fact that two publications report on the same event doesn’t make them non-independent sources. If you read the sources that you claim “mirror” one another, you will see that they are distinct articles reporting on the same event. A newsworthy event like a major property acquisition is obviously often going to be reported on by multiple publications. And the fact that an article contains things like “the company confirmed” or “the company announced” does not make that source non-independent, as long as the source also contains independent analysis of the company’s announcement. For instance, think of all the stories that begin with “the Trump administration announced (some new policy)” and then provide analysis of that policy announcement - the fact that they are “based on” an announcement by the administration obviously doesn’t make them non-independent souces. And what about the first two sources in the above table, which are clearly not just regurgitating company announcements? MCE89 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once you remove the duplication that appears in both articles and the content which originated from company sources (which appears to include all the "facts and figures", a "feature" of all Quintessential announcements), what precisely is left? If you're pushing that what is left is an "independent analysis" you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company? I don't see any independent "analysis" of the announcement. As for the first source, did you even read it? Point out where I can find any in-depth independent content *about the company* - not rumour and gossip about a potential upcoming business deal or details about other property. The second article is about a property slump in Brisbane, using the topic company's announcement of price paid vs what was previously floated as a potential price to underpin the assertions, half of the article isn't even about the topic company. Here's an article published on the same day with the same facts and numbers about the deal. In my experience, when you get articles published on the same day covering the same event, they're rarely going to meet NCORP because they regurgitate the same information provided to them by the company. HighKing⁺⁺09:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...you're going to need to point out which paragraphs (or even sentences in paragraphs?) in which sources, in your opinion, contain in-depth independent content about the company. Did you not see the table you're replying to where I did exactly that? I pointed out the paragraphs and sentences that, in my view, provide significant independent analysis. For instance, the first source explains that Quintessential's previous deal in Adelaide was to refurbish a building, but it's been linked to a series of deals involving more upmarket office buildings amid a change in the investment cycle, and that this deal in particular would give it greater exposure to the Brisbane market ahead of the 2032 Olympics. I don't see how that could possibly fall into the category of "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" or "brief or passing mentions". MCE89 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're probably at an impasse. You want to say that the first article is good - its mostly about rumours and gossip and most of the article talks about the Brisbane commercial property market in general. ORGTRIV also includes as examples, routine coverage of capital transactions. Most of the article deals with the Bris Nor does the article fit any of the descriptions of WP:SUBSTANTIAL, nor can you say it meets CORPDEPTH's definition: "[D]eep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". At most, you could say that there are a total of 6 sentences in that article which are about the company - that simply isn't sufficent to meet "deep or significant" requirement. HighKing⁺⁺18:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - voted last time as Delete. Nothing has changed. It doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are mainly announcements/Churnalism and not deep coverage about the company.Darkm777 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source analysis done by MCE89 which shows at least WP:THREE sources with significant coverage meeting the GNG. DCsansei (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Launch Vehicle

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk)

WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [27], [28], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. A merge into Australian Space Agency would retain this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL:Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. As AnonymousScholar49 notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.

I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Liversidge

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considered redirecting to Round the Twist but that article does not mention the actor or his role. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention his role, Anthony, in Round the Twist#Characters#Other. That section doesn't name any actors, though - but maybe more characters and actors could be added to the Round the Twist#Casting table. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Couldn't find any RS about him other than his minor role. Primary sources only. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Push from the Bush

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Australia. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this mention in a 1978 edition of The Canberra Times, but it's not quite SIGCOV in my view. I also found this mention in The Australian Library Journal and a few sentences about the journal in this issue of Labour History, but again neither are quite SIGCOV. I thought the discussion in this book looked promising, but like most of what I found, the relevant chapter turned out to be written by one of the journal's editors. It looks like The Push from the Bush was part of a larger project encompassing several journals and volumes called Australians: A Historical Library that was launched to mark the bicentennial, and that wider project is definitely notable, but we don't have an article about it that we could merge/redirect this to. I'll keep looking for additional sources, but at this point my !vote would be delete. MCE89 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff finding those sources. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Registering a delete, unfortunately. I couldn't find any additional sources and haven't received a response to my question below. I can't find anything that could give a pass of WP:GNG and don't see a suitable extant merge/redirect target. MCE89 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory look suggests that this subject is notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any specific sources you found? I would be very happy if this article were kept, so please do share what you found in your search. More than willing to change to keep if there are sources I missed. MCE89 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedridden

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

This was flagged since 2007, although the citations template was removed without improvement [29]. There is only one source on the page and that is just a reference to playing a song on a radio show. Searches show almost nothing. I found a reference to a saying attributed to them (wrongly), and some primary sourcing but I cannot find any independent reliable secondary sourced coverage of this non notable band. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The band has this good coverage and this article mentions a Rock 'n' Roll City: Adelaide Babylon, which promises to elaborate on The Bedridden, but I don't have access to the book to confirm. It feels like a weak delete, but it still needs another good sources to keep the article. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article, although about band leader Baterz, mentions The Bedridden:

https://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/ward-barnaby-charles-13976

It is Baterz' obituary, published in dB Magazine, an Adelaide based reputable street press (https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/2803467) 149.167.27.78 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another Baterz' obituary article from The Canberra Times mentions The Bedridden:

https://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/ward-barnaby-charles-13976/text24895

Both these obituaries, although not the original copies from the original publications, have been collected by the Australian National University's Obituary Australia (https://oa.anu.edu.au) 149.167.27.78 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article from the Canberra Times about the Bedridden:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126976895?searchTerm=Baterz 149.167.27.78 (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article from Australian publication (print and online) Beat about a Bedridden compilation:

https://beat.com.au/the-bedridden-gorilla-gorilla-gorilla/ 149.167.27.78 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With two obituaries (dB Magazine and The Canberra Times) and the Canberra Times and Beat articles, it looks like there's enough to keep something. Whether that's an article about The Bedridden, or an article about Baterz, I'm not sure. (Btw, I found several gig listings for "Baterz Bedridden".) There's also something in Overland in 2002, of which I can only see a snippet [30] - perhaps another obit? The book Rock 'n' roll city. Part two, Adelaide Babylon seems to be only in a few libraries in South Australia, so would need someone there to check it out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. The book, Rock 'n' roll city, part two, Adelaide Babylon is not available in any library service I can access, but I notice that it is self published by the author, Eric Algra. Algra is a photographer, and so I would expect that this volume contains photography - an image of the band - but not SIGCOV. Neither would it be a WP:RS as it would be self published by someone who is not an established expert in the field of music. Any information it contained about the band would likely have come directly from them or their publishing material. So I think it is out on a number of counts. Obituaries are often not independent, but in any case they would support (or not) a page on Baterz. I don't see SIGCOV on the band in (Smith, 2002). There is a bit more in (Jones, 2002). The piece in the Canberra Times is primary. The piece in Beat is secondary though. It's all pretty marginal. Can we make a page from The Beat piece and the Jones obit? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hansen (pornographic actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't seem like this one meets WP:GNG. The references are not SIGCOV and most of them don't seem like reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't look like the sources are significant coverage, and while I don't know if this recreated version is significantly different from the previously deleted version, it seems that the previous deletion nomination closed with the same finding and it is unlikely that much changed. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following sources seem to be coverage significant enough, considering he has been featured in DNA magazine and made headlines in AVN and XBIZ:

Bright, Richard (2006-08-17). "Porn Star Q&A: Brian Hansen". AVN.
"Meet Brian Hansen". Fleshbot. 2006-04-25.
"COLT Launches Buckshot Man Brian Hansen's Fan Site". XBIZ. 2007-02-06
"BRIAN HANSEN The life and times and pajamas of porn's latest superstar". DNA. No. 81. January 2006.
"Brian Hansen's Grabby Snatch". DNA Magazine #90. July 2007. p. 10. Retrieved 2025-04-20 – via Scribd.
Rice, G. Zisk (2010-01-08). "Buckshot Man Brian Hansen Returns in 'Lotus'". AVN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup could be done of unreliable sources, instead of deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are too efficient (AVN) to justify keeping the article Iban14mxl (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes SIGCOV Madeline1805 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Needs coverage in more independent sources than AVN and DNA. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The are all either not RS or not SIGCOV. Furthermore, the article is quite vague (e.g. "his parents were from two different continents") and certainly does not read as an encyclopaedic article. Overall, I'd say it could be saved if it wasn't for the questionable reliability of the sources, and the fact those are the best that seem to be available. JacobTheRox (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe there should be some coverage outside media only focused on the adult industry. That still leaves plenty of notable porn actors. gidonb (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations

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

Dear Old London (via WP:PROD on 8 May 2025)

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:

Australia-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

|}

Shortcut

WP:AFD/NZ

New Zealand

Zeynep Heyzen Ateş

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Turkey. Kadı Message 18:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wilkinson-Smith

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New Zealand. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More puffery than a plate of puffed pastries. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - we are not LinkedIn - but I note that he was "president of the Criminal Bar Association" (which one?). Bearian (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Frank Ken (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete There do not seem to be enough RSes to justify inclusion here. This also seems to be a bit of puffery. Therefore, it should not be included.
Delete Agree, there is nothing particularly notable about him.Blackballnz (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Harrison-Jones

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

Non-notable New Zealand rugby player. Subject plays below provincial level. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORT. Cabrils (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The statement in the nomination that subject plays below provincial level is incorrect: Tasman Mako play in the highest division of the National Provincial Championship. Paora (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The most coverage I found was a few sentences here. Please ping me if more is uncovered. JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Barry (New Zealand paediatrician)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and New Zealand. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Point 1 of ANYBIO is receiving a significant honour. I'd say that his QSO meets that mark; there are only 226 recipients. If we're invoking WP:NACADEMIC (which seems reasonable) he satisfies point 3 as fellow of the RCP and RACP, and seems clearly more notable than the average professor. As for GNG, this [31] is one source; can anyone do better? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NBIO states: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Having received the New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal and being a QSO should be enough. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would like to see more sources to support including this person but they currently seem barely notable enough to justify inclusion. That said, if anyone has more sources, I would encourage that they add it to the page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Rowing Club

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Olympics, and New Zealand. Skynxnex (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At 120 years old, the club has been around. Could you please outline what you have done regarding WP:BEFORE, Ophyrius? Schwede 66 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Schwede66! I did a quick search on my search engine and all the content that was displayed was of other clubs. Only this article was this Wikipedia one that told about this specific club. Because of that I don't think this is as notable. But, I may be using a search engine other than yours. If you find any sources from there please tell. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 03:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, we have digitised newspapers in New Zealand at PapersPast; mostly up to 1945 but some going as recent as 1989. When I search for the phrase "Hamilton Rowing Club" (i.e. not just the words, but the equivalent of searching for a string of words in quotation marks), I get 1,942 results. Much of that will be routine reporting, but I'm sure there will be some gems in there, too. If you weren't aware of PapersPast, you wouldn't have found those results; you have to search through their website directly. As such, I shall place a keep !vote. Schwede 66 08:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Categories / Templates / etc.

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts#Alerts.

Elsewhere in Oceania

Claytus Taqimama

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Oceania. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable sprinter who achieved nothing of significance and a lack of sources to show for it Scooby453w (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely does not meet the standard of WP:GNG. There is basically just one RS to support this and a notable person would have more RSes supporting inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lusik

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

I cannot find any evidence whatsoever for the existance of this town. The only references I can find online are copies of this - frankly terribly written - article, which itself reads like some bizzare advert. I've tried looking at maps of Papua New Guinea and cannot find this place whatsoever. I believe this is either a long-lived hoax, or a very minor and non notable settlement. Trying to find any evidence of the supposed mythical creatures or the chief in the article also give no results leading me to believe this may be entirely fictional. Regardless it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I did PROD this article but it was contested, leadimg me to nom here.

Edit; I have found some evidence of existance, https://peachin.com/among-the-tribes-of-papua-new-guinea/ but I'm not convinced this is enough for notability. CoconutOctopus talk 18:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CoconutOctopus talk 18:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marut is at least on a map, but I can't otherwise verify any of this. SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it could be found on a map, it would need to be rewritten and it's unlikely references could be found to all the infoBlackballnz (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC) in the article.[reply]

Delete - Other than the peachin.com article, there is minimal info on the subject. I found Marut on open maps [32] though. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time