Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,342,472 edits
Line 21: Line 21:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Nicholson (poet and author)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Gammas}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Gammas}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manfred Hamilton}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manfred Hamilton}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gerard Kennedy}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verity Charlton}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verity Charlton}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renmark Rovers FC (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renmark Rovers FC (2nd nomination)}}

Revision as of 15:25, 24 June 2010

Shortcuts

Template:WPAustralia Navigation

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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 Australia. 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.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania.

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


Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures

Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. a non notable festival. one hit in gnews [1] LibStar (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2010 (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.
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. Jayjg (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Cap 3wbc

The Night Cap 3wbc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In addition to the many issues raised the tags (COI, notability, no references, original research), there are serious NPOV violations as well. Almost qualifies for a {{db-spam}} tag. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:42, 20 June 2010 (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.
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. Tone 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Aviet (Squash Player)

Josh Aviet (Squash Player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate that this person meets the general notability guideline. Though there appears to be a junior squash player by this name, I'm finding no evidence to support the claims of competing at a national level that would satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can get proof of him playing at national level. I can get the draws of two Australian Opens, as well as the International Milo All Star tournament, clearly showing his name.Ilikesquash (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can send forms showing his participation in two Australian Junior Championships, as well as the international event the Milo All Star 2010, which comprised of 14 different countries.Ilikesquash (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, although this might be helpful in verifying some of the article's claims, unless this information has already been published in reliable sources it would not help to satisfy the notability grounds on which the article's deletion is proposed. I'll move your comment to the main deletion discussion page so that others can see it. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2010 (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.
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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broughton Anglican College

AfDs for this article:
    Broughton Anglican College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Delete - The page is about a small unnotable country school whose been in the newspaper once for a regional award. To top it off, the "Nominated Moderator" from the school is threatening legal action and constantly vandalising the page to remove negative comments about the school. The page itself is poorly written and a stub that's seen no desire to be expanded upon in the last 3 years except by the "Nominated Moderator" who continually replaces the entire contents of the page with the school's prospectus, turning it into an advert. - Count23 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the page should be deleted as it is continually vandalised by an individual who inserts irrelevant negative comments about the school. I would like to free up this individuals time to focus on meaningful pursuits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.161.8 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This comment is posted from the IP address that is known to be the "nominated moderator" from the school. Whose vandalism includes exactly what was mentioned above by Count23 on no less then 15 previous edits. - 15.195.201.88 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, Possible Merge The school is rather insignificant in terms of even local education in Australia. Not notable at all as mentioned above. In regards to the anonymous IP submission here, it should be noted that this is one of several IP addresses from the school who are constantly whitewashing the page and replacing it with copyright information that was copy+pasted from the school's own website. An admin should look into blocking these IP ranges from making submissions on wikipedia because of actions which contradict WP:CENSOR . - 121.44.242.219 (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously significant enough, for you to have attended it and to have an obsession with it. We support deletion of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.161.8 (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Please read WP:NPA, do not attack the user submitting the content, attack the content directly. Personal attacks aren't tolerated on wikipedia and you may be blocked if it continues. While you, as a representative of the college may support deleting this page, you need to have a reason that is supported by Wikipedia's deletion policy. The comments you have made indicate you wish the page deleted simply because it portrays you in a negative light, this is more likely to result in the page remaining and simply being locked to prevent you from editing it. - Count23 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also, as the anonymous user suggested, re-read WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not a place where you can simply hide the sins of the past. - Count23 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I support deletion of this page. If there is such angst over what should be on it and not, then it is not serving anyone's purposes. It is just a place for a local dispute and our community does not need that. Delete away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward John 2560 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment If it is kept, someone is going to need to flag this for cleanup by the wikischools project because it's been just a badly written article for over 3 years. It will also need regular checks to ensure that vandals or the "Nominated Moderator" are not constantly trying to whitewash it. - 121.44.129.73 (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2010 (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.
    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 keep per the lone reason for retention, accompanied by said article's improvement, which has not been rebutted. –MuZemike 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SubAudible Hum

    SubAudible Hum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:MUSIC. no signficant coverage [2]. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (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.
    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. –MuZemike 02:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nolan Menachemson

    Nolan Menachemson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. 1 hit in gnews [3]. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2010 (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.
    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 Sarah 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Stambolziev

    AfDs for this article:
    Robert Stambolziev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Has not played in profesional league, not notable. Contested PROD. First AfD was never transcluded or even referenced on the article page.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, WP:GNG states that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. As far as I know, consensus is to follow WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N, when it comes to footballers. So, unless it's proved he's notable for something else other than his football career, I can't see why he should be on Wiki. — Luxic (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually ATHLETE and FOOTY state A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability, so they do not trump GNG. Nobody disputes that Stambolziev fails these dubious criteria but I contend that he passes GNG, specifically by recieving significant coverage in third-party, reliable secondary souces. In the sources supplied he certainly gets "more than a trivial mention" though he "need not be the main topic of the source material" in any event. Eliteimp (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Luxic certainly provides a novel interpretation of the policy, but I remain convinced that if WP:GNG is met then the article is notable and should remain. Contributions here which evince a preference for WP:ATHLETE, while doing nothing to dispute or even address the claim to WP:GNG don't carry much weight in my eyes. I'm sure the closing admin will note that no-one here has credibly challenged the WP:RSs or the claim to WP:GNG when they hand down their judgement. Eliteimp (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been on this site for years and as far as I recall, footballers failing WP:FOOTY/N have always been deleted, regardless of any significant coverage of their youth/amateur careers. So, rather than a novel interpretation of mine, I'd call it consesus (which, of course, you may not agree with). — Luxic (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources listed in the article, I looked at a few, and all were either passing mentions or broken links. In this Google News Archive search, I was unable to find significant coverage that discussed Stambolziev's life. I consider this article from the BBC, though about Stambolziev, to be insufficient to establish notability because it lacks depth. If Eliteimp can provide links to two reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Stambolziev (and more depth than the BBC article I mentioned above), I will reconsider my position. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In these discussions there is a tendency to override WP:GNG by pretending any and every source supplied is "trivial". In addition to the those in the article, I found [4] and [5] within a couple of minutes. I don't understand your request for coverage discussing Stambolziev's life in depth - surely the notability attaches to his career as a footballer? As far as I can see there are numerous reliable third-party sources which are wholly and/or explicitly to do with that. Eliteimp (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources are not enough to cause me to change to keep in that they contain little information about his life and seem to be news reports that contain little depth (for example, little of this article contains little secondary information about Stambolziev himself — I count three sentences about him and the rest of the article being composed of excerpts from an interview). However, these sources are enough to cause me to strike my delete vote and switch to neutral. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In my view, Luxic is absolutely right. We have to remember that both WP:ATH and WP:GNG are guidelines that give rise to presumptions, not guarantees of notability. With that in mind, neither "trumps" the other. This person clearly fails WP:ATH, which is the community's most generous inclusion criterion. On the other hand, his case on GNG is marginal at best - the sources appear provide isolated sports news coverage of events in his career rather than in depth biographical material. So in my view any presumption caused by the subject meeting the GNG - which is weak - is outweighed by his clear failure to meet the objective criteria of WP:ATH. Only with this approach can we mitigate the randomness and unpredictability of the GNG with sensible objective standards of notability. At the end of the day, notability is about being "worthy of note", and it is only in special cases that a non-professional footballer in England is likely to be worthy of note.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Orderinchaos 10:12, 29 June 2010 (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.
    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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Armando Cesari

    Armando Cesari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:CREATIVE. coverage mainly for authoring one biography but no significant accolades for this. [6]. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2010 (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.
    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 Sarah 15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Peachfuzz

    Peachfuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:MUSIC. could not find specific coverage for this Australian band. there's organisations and sporting teams called peachfuzz in chicago and UK but not the same as this one. [7] LibStar (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi. This is the user Schmozzle, who created the Peachfuzz entry. The reason you can't find anything on the web for the band is that it basically predates the era when the web came into popular use for musicians. I (Stefan Schutt) was in the band Peachfuzz, which was popular in Melbourne and nationally between 1992 and 1995, as the article states. I have dozens of reviews, articles and the like about the band, but these have not been translated onto the web. It is listed in the Australia Who's Who of Music (only available in hard copy) and since then other bands have taken on the name. The problem with using Internet references as the logic for removing the page is that this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: the reason I created the entry was that the band's career, which was important to the local music scene, had not been documented sufficiently. There is a real danger of Wikipedia adopting a circular logic that will mean that anything created prior to the internet era that is still not in online circulation will be deleted from our collective history. This is especially the case for localised but significant cultural activities and organisations like our band. I am happy to scan and send any evidence of the band's career - but please don't assume that just because it's not seen online, it didn't exist or wasn't important. Thanks. Schmozzle (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Schmozzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmozzle (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC) — Schmozzle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    non web references are permitted but you must cite them properly. most Australian newspapers are covered in online archives for past 30 years, so it is highly unusual for a notable band not to get significant online coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It depends what you call 'notable' and which papers you mean. In Melbourne, the only dedicated music coverage in the two newspapers is the EG in The Age - a foldout section on a Friday that had a particular slant on what it covered. This also ignores the street papers and magazines that no longer exist (eg the Form Guide). The local Fitzroy indie scene of the early 90s, of which we were part, was important in the cultural history of the city and the country's music scene, but was not always covered by the daily papers at the time. Also, online archives are selective and don't always cover specialist areas. In my case, I have hard copies of the articles and cite them.

    Another point on the perceived conflict of interest: usually with smaller bands (as well as other cultural activities) that were around some time ago, the 'keepers' of the info on them is with the people who were involved with them. I don't think that's a COI unless it affects the tone or objectivity of the article written. Schmozzle (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Schmozzle[reply]


    Further to the above comments: as well as the posting of references and other details on the Peachfuzz page, I have been looking at Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians and ensembles.

    It says that a musician or ensemble may be notable if it meets at least one of a group of criteria. I believe that Peachfuzz meets the following criteria: 

      1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]
         * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
               o Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]
               o Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
               o Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    Note: of the references I have added to the article, one is from a university paper (Lot's Wife) but the others are from the street press, one from a regional paper (Forte), one from a national music magazine (the now-defunct Juice), and the listing in the Who's Who of Australian Rock. 

      5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

    We had one LP released by Mushroom Record on their Temptation development label, plus two others with national pressing and distribution deals: MDS (also a Mushroom company) and Shock. 


      6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

    Peachfuzz drummer Cameron Potts is a notable Melbourne musician, who plays or played in well-known local bands NinetyNine, Baseball, Sandro and Cuba is Japan. He has his own dedicated Wikipedia page. 

      7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

    Peachfuzz was recognised as a leading exponent of the Fitzroy Scene of the early to mid 1990s, which also spawned recognised bands such as the Mavis's and the Lucksmiths 

     10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

    Peachfuzz had songs included in two national TV shows: Police Rescue and Simon Townsend's Wonder World 

     11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

    A number of Peachfuzz's songs (Hurt You, Beautiful Fire and Who Loves You) were on high rotation on national youth radio station JJJ. 

     12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

    Peachfuzz undertook an extended live to air on national radio station JJJ in 1994

    121.219.254.65 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle (sorry, forgot to log in before editing)[reply]

    • Comment Regardless, you need to provide sources about the JJJ thing. Actually, you need to provide sources over all of those claims. Also, it seems to me that Schmozzle may have a COI thing going on with this band. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to Undead Warrior: - could you please state the basis in the Wikipedia guidelines for your claim of a COI

    - I have tried to find the references for the JJJ playlist but have not been able to find records. Again, the issue is whether or not records were kept and if they're available. I understand the onus is on proof but what if it does not exist in electronic form, except in the experiences of those who took part? In some cases, perhaps the fact that the claim is on Wikipedia means that, like in scientific papers when claims are made, it is in the public domain and open to challenge by anybody. I have tapes of the live to airs, the interviews, the APRA royalty statements for airplay etc, but how to turn that into sources in an online article?

    What follows is a more detailed examination of this discussion to date, in the interests of furthering Wikipedia and how it works.

    - further to my initial point about history in the age of the Internet: there's an arbitrary aspect to whether or not certain content appears on the internet, particularly when that content predates the internet. This is only partly related to the validity of the content. The web is a self-archiving system, and if our band had been around now, a lot of the discussion on it that appeared in fanzines and other offline forums would now be on the web. And even then there is variation. For instance, my partner played in a band called Snog in the 1990s. There is a lot more information on the web about Snog, partly because a) they lasted longer into the web age, whereas our band broke up when the web really got going, and b) Snog were an electronic industrial band, and the kinds of people who followed them were by default more into using technology than the people who were into indie rock.

    - further to the last point: I wonder whether the kinds of people who have the time and energy to become Wikipedia volunteers are generally 'internet era' people, ie younger than people like me who weren't brought up with the internet. For those people, the internet has always been there, and so for them the default check as to whether something exists or is 'notable' is Google (or similar). There is a real danger here of missing a lot of localised pre-internet things that happened, that matter, but that have not left much of a trace on the web.

    - Wikipedia is a reference resource - in that context, the online popularity of particular content is a flawed measure of its worth. You don't include or exclude content from an encyclopedia or dictionary based on how many people talk about it. Rather it's whether the content adds to the comprehensive coverage of a particular knowledge area.

    - on the topic of Conflicts of Interest: the case for a COI is harder to make when the band has broken up, because there's no self-interest in promoting it beyond a certain desire to maintain legacy (as in my case). And as stated previously, those interested in maintaining legacy are usually those who have been involved in the activity - here I think of my local historical society, based on the site of an old prison, whose members are mainly warders etc of the prison

    - Remember that Wikipedia article creators are learning as they go, and sometimes they don't know that they're doing something wrong. I keep learning constantly on things like the attribution of license to images, layout of articles etc. Wikipedia rules are complex and are sometimes discovered through trial and error. Finding the right way to do things on Wikipedia is sometimes not easy. Be patient with us if we are contributors with goodwill. For instance, I have only just discovered that there's a talk area for users, and so have only just seen a very useful discussion on an article for a current band of mine that I created and that was deleted in January.

    - I have to say that I am disturbed about Undead Warrior's call for speedy deletion of the Peachfuzz article, but heartened by the fact that Wikipedia's internal checks resulted in the CSD being overruled. My understanding is that CSDs were designed to be used for content that is gratuitous, offensive, pointless or misleading. The Peachfuzz article was none of the above, and the CSD was based only on a questioning of the band's notability and the fact that more references were needed. A CSD could be used to shut down the kind of debate and discussion that is now taking place here, and that helps to inform the development of Wikipedia.

    Thank you for reading.

    Schmozzle (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The overly detailed defence is unnecessary, and unlikely to convince any editors, especially coming from a former member of the band in question. In fact, it screams non-notable. But for what it's worth, the Who's Who source and a few of the magazine citations seem like they might be valid demonstrations of notability (although maybe not - the book explicitly states that it covers even "obscure" bands). Could you provide some context, perhaps a quote from Who's Who? And for the magazines, we need a bit more information than just name and year - please add issue numbers (unless of course it's an annual).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    OK, thanks for that feedback.

    Sorry my reply was lengthy - but it was only partly about defending the article. In the end you guys will decide what is considered appropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of what I say. The other stuff I raised is more about the larger issues this example raises about what you see as valid as history or evidence: ie is it only considered to have existed if it's on the web? Wikipedia is now considered an authoritative and valued resource, has a huge reach, and as such I think this issue an important one to raise, because keepers of Wikipedia like yourselves will have a big say in deciding what part of our past is remembered and what is forgotten. (Here I have to out myself as a university researcher in history and the internet).

    As regards the article, I will add magazine page and issue numbers (I had not put them in because the Wikipedia referencing guidelines said not to!) and will find the edition and quote from the Who's Who. Should I put the quote in the body of the article or here?

    In deciding notability, the guidelines say that a band is considered notable if it meets one of the criteria (commented on above). So if it is deleted, will it be on the basis that it doesn't meet all of these? Or is it a more subjective decision? Similarly, is there a guideline that says that being a member of a band, then creating an article about it, constitutes a COI? I haven't seen it. I'm not trying to be difficult here, just to get some clarity about your terms of reference.Schmozzle (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle[reply]

    No, as mentioned above, offline references are fine, but they must be specifically identified, and much more importantly, reliable. The vast majority of deletions occur because the article could not be verified by multiple, reliable secondary sources. This page does cite sources, but are they reliable, and if they are do they demonstrate the notability of the band? That is, is their coverage by that source non-trivial? The magazine Beat, for example, seems to be a local Melbourne gig guide. This doesn't really count as a reliable source - it's basically promotional material. If their performances were covered by a newspaper that might give you a better argument.
    If you want to give a quote from the source to help decide if it establishes notability, post it here or at the article discussion page, not the article mainspace.
    Yes, writing about a band you were a member of constitutes COI, but it is not necessarily an issue as long as the article is written neutrally and in an encyclopaedic style.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (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.
    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. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights

    European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:ORG. despite its grand name only 6 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2010 (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.
    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 merge to Australian National University. T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art

    Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Lacks media coverage. The three mentions in ArtNotes are quite short; one gives a little detail about the prize; the other two only mention the winner. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:59, 21 June 2010 (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.
    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 merge to Doctor Who in Australia. Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Double Gammas

    Double Gammas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable award for possibly non-notable organisation. No reliable sources, nor assertion of notability. No gNews hits for "Double Gammas" or "Double Gamma". Google hits only return other fansites, blogs and facebook. Has been tagged for notability since its creation two years ago. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this happening again? It's a twenty six year old national award. Albeit a fan award. It's as notable as any other such award, and is currently in its latest round for judging. What other sources are relevant? MartinSFSA (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an entire category of not just fan awards, but Australian fan awards. Are you hostile to their existence too or merely singling Doctor Who fandom out? MartinSFSA (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean Category:Australian science fiction awards? Unfortunately I'd have to say yes. Of the six distinct awards named in that category, two appear to be former incarnations of a current award, one is a subset of a current award, and only one has any reliable sources at all (the Aurealis Awards, although all the WP:RSs are all in sub-pages and the whole set could do with a decent merging). Seriously, I love Doctor Who as much as the next sci-fi die-hard, but we're merely hostile to the existence of unverifiable articles here at Wikipedia.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't identify yourself with "we" or "Wikipedia", it's just the two of you tagging and re-tagging. I'm not pleased at having to argue this all over again and I'll be interested to see you continue this spurious argument on to the Hugos and Nebulas. Wake me when we get there. MartinSFSA (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2010 (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.
    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. Shimeru 08:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Manfred Hamilton

    Manfred Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Wikipedia is not a memorial site, but that's what this article feels like, even after continued cleanup. The subject's claim to fame is winning a "Mr. Universe" title in the over 60 category in 2004. However, it does not appear to be a notable competition, as neither WFF Universe nor GMV Bodybuilding has an article. The only source that corroborates the title is the sponsor's website. Not even the illustrations can be relied upon, as they're created by a member of the subject's family. Finally, speaking of member of the subject's family, Jizzom (talk · contribs) (note: user is requesting a username change to grumet_kaz (talk · contribs)) admitted to being the subject's son, so there is a severe conflict of interest on the part of the main contributor. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Im not sure If I'm allowed to write here? Im new to this, But I just trying to stop This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. I would just like to leave the artical as is, I know how you feel that its not a Memorial Page But I've tried to make it less, with just Infomation. And will leave as is(I have contacted NABBA/WFF) Friends of Manie and are wating on their site to update with list of all tittles untill then I would love to just leave as is. And keep Manfred Hamilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizzom (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 June 2010 (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.
    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 Sarah 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Verity Charlton

    Verity Charlton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    clearly fails WP:ENT. no extensive career here or ongoing notable roles looking at IMDB [8]. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment IMDB does not give nor detract notability. With its instruction that include "other productions", WP:ENT is set in place to consider more things than just film... and even having a short "film" career is not ipso-facto non-notabiliy if it an be shown the subject meets ENT's consideration of "other productions" or meets WP:GNG. For example, a quick search finds Charlton receives positive critical response for her work in theater. In reviewing Raised in Captivity (2003), The Age writes "The character of Bernadette (Verity Charlton) for example, gives an almost text-book characterisation of bipolar disorder, swinging rapidly from anxiety-ravaged shouting to beatific calm".[9] In reviewing Loyal Women (2004), The Age writes "Verity Charlton is superb as Brenda, gradually developing the character's strength and natural leadership as she finds a way of surviving against crushing odds. The ensemble of seven women that includes the guest actors Carole Yelland and Christine Keogh, work strongly together under Denny Lawrence's direction. They create an impression of a group honed by harsh necessity into a vengeful squad capable of violence and cruelty as repugnant as that of the men".[10] In reviewing Vincent in Brixton (2005), The Age writes "Verity Charlton's gently unobtrusive presence as Eugenie... ...complete one of Red Stitch's most assured, polished productions.".[11]. So it is seen that her career consists of much more than a simple {and uncitable) IMDB listing. Positively writing of a stage actor in context to her performance and specifically praising her work within that review, does not fall under the cautions about "trivial" coverage of lists and databases, and with the GNG specifically assuring editors that the person "need not be the main topic of the source material", it must be considered that she may indeed merit inclusion with a bit of work. This is what I found in just a couple minutes. What else was missed? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2010 (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.
    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 no consensus. –MuZemike 00:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Renmark Rovers FC

    AfDs for this article:
    Renmark Rovers FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    speedy renomination due to last AfD. fails WP:ORG nothing in gnews [12]. the article is basically a website for followers of the club, which play in a low level league in South Australia. it is not like the Australian Football League or VFL. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They are :
    ABC Radio broadcasts the Riverland Football League Grand Final - is about the Riverland Football League Grand Final and not the club.
    Renmark Rovers reign is a LOCAL paper piece about a match the club won, given a club was going to win if the Loxton Tigers had won it would have been about them.
    Renmark Rovers celebrates 100 years is about the club being 100 years old
    Modra and Riccuito prepare for battle is not about the club.
    So only one is what you could call "Significant coverage" (the one on the club being 100 years old). So still fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Codf1977 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out earlier, significant coverage does not refer to quantity, but rather that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." Movementarian (Talk) 12:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I mistook you. The Grand Final article is about the grand final that the club took part in, the fourth article i=links the player to the club in his early years and his final game. I think it meets the requirement, just barely which is enough for me. Movementarian (Talk) 12:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that WP:CLUB was intended to cover sports teams. WP:ORG makes no mention of sports teams anywhere in the narrative. I haven't found a guideline that specifically covers the notability of teams. {{WP:SPORT]] is inder development, but does not address teams yet, so I will base my rebuttal on precedent. Single-A baseball teams are included in Wikipedia and they get marginal regional coverage in most places and almost never get national coverage. This team is no different than that. They are a professional team in a lower ranked division of Australian football. Movementarian (Talk) 06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Renmark Rovers Football Club is not covered by WP:CLUB? That's a perplexing argument. And on what basis is Renmark Rovers a "professional team"? Do you mean every player is paid a salary by the club, and plays football as a fulltime career? WWGB (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not perplexing. You are over-simplifying. From reading WP:CLUB it seems clear that it is intended for things like local chapters of national clubs ([[i.e. Rotary Club). I can't answer your second question, as I am not familiar with the ins and outs of lower level (or senior level for that matter) Australian football. All I can say is that the article now meets WP:GNG based on the following: They compete in a notable league (Riverland Football League) and they have press coverage from multiple reliable sources. It's not going to hurt my feelings if it goes, I just happen to think that it is at least as notable as minor league baseball teams. Movementarian (Talk) 12:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The club's notability has been established through it's age, it's coverage both in terms of region (It represents the largest city in the Riverland area of South Australia) and media (The local paper - the Murray Pioneer - is one of the major regional papers in the state), and the fact that a highly recognisable player and personality played for them, and in fact started his footballing life with them IIRC puts this over the line. It is a semi professional club, and to take out clubs simply because it's not fully professional would create a dangerous precedent that would remove all of the local level of football in Australia. The game at the local level is far more notable than the lower reaches of English soccer or the same level of American baseball. AFL-Cool 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The age of the club is the only thing that to me lends an air of notability to the club, most of the rest of the points you make are based on WP:INHERITED notability. As for the press coverage, it lacks the Significant nature that you need to conclude notability. Codf1977 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant does not mean amount or weight according to the definition in WP:GNG. Movementarian (Talk) 13:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And not only that, there is no claim in my comments that violates WP:INHERITED. I find that comment highly insulting. AFL-Cool 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I don't buy the argument that the article about the 2009 Grand Final is inadmissible as demonstration of notability. How do you figure? Premise: The article is about the winner of the match. Fact: Remark Football Club is the winner of the match. Conclusion: The article is about Renmark Football Club. One article with significant coverage and several with trivial coverage Several articles with more than trivial coverage is enough to satisfy the GNG. I'm quite sure there would be more articles available at microfiche databases, but I'm not about to go find them. A history of the Renmark area might be a good place to go to find a bombproof source demonstrating notability. I also disagree that sporting clubs are intended to be encompassed by WP:CLUB - even SANFL wouldn't satisfy "activity on a national scale". --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is somewhat borderline for a relist, but given that it's a rapid renomination, I'd rather give it some time to see whether consensus emerges, rather than just close it as no-consensus again. Shimeru 06:17, 18 June 2010 (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.
    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. — Scientizzle 19:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Robin Foenander

    Robin Foenander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CREATIVE as a broadcaster. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


    Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations

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

    Australia-related Miscellany for deletion

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

    None at present

    Australia-related Templates for Deletion

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

    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
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Australia&oldid=369926691"