Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:26, 24 June 2010

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

(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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that it's a hopeless one-line stub doesn't negate the 3 reliable sources already cited on the page. Possibly move to Garma Festival. "...of Traditional Cultures" is just boilerplate PC pap, and more pertinently, all the refs call it simply "Garma Festival".--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ABC source already in the article goes a long way towards establishing notability, and searching for just "Garma Festival", as suggested by Yeti Hunter, finds plenty more such sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, independent coverage and awards push this over the notability line in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep clearly notable, although article needs work. Orderinchaos 10:10, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Cap 3wbc

(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]

Delete per nom. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written by one of the DJs. It's barely coherent and there is no sourcing. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 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. Tone 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Aviet (Squash Player)

(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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:33, 24 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:ATHLETE. (By the way there is another article with the same subject: Josh Aviet (squash player)) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, copied from this AfD's talk page:

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

(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]

Delete The sole reference lead to a page not found. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the established precedent of keeping verifiable secondary schools. This gets the same sorts and quantity of Google and Google news hits as almost all other such schools; if there are problems with the editing of the article, they can be dealt with through protection, blocks, or whatever other means may be appropriate. Deor (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Assuming content can be verified. High schools are considered inherently notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This place was extensively covered by Architecture Australia: Urbanity in the Suburbs. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. Secondary schools are generally notable. It's odd that I can't access the website for this school, but it is mentioned in a few references and Colonel Warden's reference (and a few others if you Google it) serves to satisfy WP:V. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pdcook - high schools are almost always kept, especially when they can be verified by good sources. See also my standards, for which this school meets 7 out of 9 factors. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 22 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a high school with independent coverage. Sources available to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 14:57, 26 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

(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]

comment this should come out as a keep as j award nominated albums were featured albums and featured albums have tracks place on medium to high rotation. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 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]

Delete No coverage except for a few sentence mention on a news website. Not enough to justify a page. mboverload @ 02:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've provided references for the article and it now satisfies wp:n. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:41, 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

(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]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN person, and clearly COI CTJF83 pride 04:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 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 Sarah 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stambolziev

(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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. nom is correct in stating that he has not played at highest professional level. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced, passes WP:GNG. Only fails WP:ATHLETE on a technicality, due to the contractual/compensation dispute with Bristol City. Eliteimp (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the sentence claiming that he's only kept out of the first team due to that dispute is unsourced - who's to say he'd have played first-team football anyway....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 26 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]

Relisting comment. More discussion is needed on whether or not he meets WP:GNG. I fixed up and closed the first AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As long as there's no proof of any professional first team appearances, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. — Luxic (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you misread the relisting comment? This discussion is about WP:GNG, thanks. Eliteimp (talk) 17:21, 28 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]

What I was trying to point out is that in GNG the key word is presumption. That is, significant coverage in third-party, reliable secondary souces gives a presumption of notability, but does not assure it. That's why we have specific notability guidelines for each subject, I think. — Luxic (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider a topic that passes WP:GNG to be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, as long as it does not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (that is what the "presumption" of notability refers to). In this situation, I am not convinced that Robert Stambolziev passes GNG so I cannot support retention. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 29 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]

Ok, what about these: 1 or 2? Eliteimp (talk) 15:53, 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

(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]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights

(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]

Delete - as per nom, grand name, and there is some coverage, however none of it is significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not informed in this area, but I think it would be important to see if anyone from WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of Australia wants to offer suggestions, since this seems like it could be an organization more notable to specialists in the area than the general public. I'm going to post a neutral request for advice on their talk page. Hash789 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Misarxist (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 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 merge to Australian National University. T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art

(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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it isn't notable, we should transwiki or create a page on Commons given that project has many related images. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and reasonable article about an aspect of contemporary art in Australia. Good credentials with hosting organisation and judging panel. An ongoing event. Refs also given from The Canberra Times. At the very least merge to Australian National University. No cause for deletion. Ty 10:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but I would say that, as I am the person who created the page, and I was the President/Chairman of the organiation at the time of its endowment and creation (some AU$17,000). The annual prize has been AU$5,000. The point of the Prize was that people would create religious-themed art. This has been a national as well as local prize, for the Australian Capital Territory but also Australia and internationally. Hundreds of artists have participated through the arrangement and sponsorship by the Australian National University and its Institute of Art. Even if this prize dies out, it has been a significant art prize, and deserves to be memorialised. - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian National University - not enough coverage to have an independent article, but a well-sourced paragraph on this on the University's article would be relevant. Claritas § 13:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian National University or keep, I don't see the point of deletion...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why "Lacks media coverage" is an argument for deletion, let alone a sufficient argument for deletion. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By "Lacks media coverage", I am saying that I dont believe it is notable. i.e. this article fails the policy WP:N, IMO. The Canberra Times is the local newspaper for the region where the ANU is situated; we generally disregard such sources as evidence of notability because they are reporting on local issues. As far as I can tell, this is the only newspaper which has ever mentioned the Phoenix Prize. Being attached to a university doesn't automatically make an award notable; external recognition of the award is required. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:25, 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 merge to Doctor Who in Australia. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Gammas

(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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:48, 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]

Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. long living does not make them notable. other such awards are also non-notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 21 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]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The Double Gammas are one of the more important awards in Australian SF fandom where Dr Who fandom has traditionally been strong. It makes sense to cover them here as they have historical value in terms of those communities. Alternatively I can see the general content about them being merged with Doctor Who in Australia, which has discussion about Doctor Who fandom in Australia, although I'd rather see them stand alone due to weight issues, as that's a more general article. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge - A merge to a more general article would eliminate the problem of having only self-published sources. If reliable sources become available there is nothing to stop the page from being reestablished.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator's agreement with Bibly's proposal. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable fan award. Then redirect to digamma. Reyk _YO! 01:27, 30 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]

Delete - Even if it is the most important Australian Doctor Who fandom award in the whole wide world, that doesn't strike me as being terribly notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The South Australian Club alone's been in all the local print media, even a notable defunct one. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:00, 4 July 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

(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]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Claritas § 10:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this him (in the over 60s cat)? Keep if so. Albeit a major re-write needed. Eliteimp (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be, but do you notice that http://www.worldfitnessfederation.de is not actually a valid URL by itself? There is no year specified, no contact information, no validation - I can't begin to see it as a reliable source (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about that page makes you think he's a keep based on that result? What about that website (and the root page is http://www.worldfitnessfederation.de/nabba/frame1/navi_wff.html with nothing higher level) confers more notability on the competition than it had before you found it? —C.Fred (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear from that page and NABBA that the guy was competing at the top level of international amateur bodybuilding. I also think it ridiculous that the user has been blocked for supposedly having a "lewd synonym" for a user name. Eliteimp (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? You think "jism" (what the Oxford English Dictionary calls "vulgar, slang" for semen) is an ok username?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very few body builders meet WP:GNG (including this one), there is no WP:ATHLETE for Body Building, and he does not appear to have been a professional -Drdisque (talk) 17:47, 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

(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 [7]. 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]

Keep. I have restructured the article and added references. The club is 100 years old and boasts a highly successful alumnus, which satisifies notability for me. Movementarian (Talk) 09:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry it may well be 100 years old but without any significant coverage of the club, it fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage means that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." I have provided four articles from ABC about the club, which satisfies WP:GNG. Movementarian (Talk) 16:13, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CLUB since "the scope of their activities is [NOT] national or international in scale" as required. WWGB (talk) 23:26, 10 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

(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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 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]

Weak Keep, I'm not overly familiar with the Sri Lankan broadcasting industry, but I'd imagine that having a #1 with the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation is good enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:36, 12 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]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, band has been on top lists and there's a little coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there isn't substantial coverage of this WP:BLP subject then I don't see why we should be making any exceptions to policy. Sufficient non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources is lacking!! Fix it or it goes. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per JBSupreme's comment re sourcing. --Sarah 16:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in depth coverage of the subject, just passing mentions therefore fails the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:45, 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.

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:

Template:Greater Sydney Regions

Australia-related Categories for Discussion

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

Category:Macedonians in Australia - Discussion

Australia-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stambolziev (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Cesari}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peachfuzz}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Gammas}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manfred Hamilton}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verity Charlton}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renmark Rovers FC (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Foenander}}