Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates

Australasian Association for Logic

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

No indication of WP:NORG notability. C F A 💬 22:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Logic, Philosophy, Organizations, Geography, and Australia. C F A 💬 22:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 22:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Best source I could find is this section in A Companion to Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand. Few other brief mentions [1][2][3][4]. Probably doesn't pass GNG or NORG, but it seems to be important in history of philosophy of logic in Australia. A merge might be possible if there is a good location, maybe Australian philosophy, University of New England (Australia) or Australasian Association of Philosophy. The annual conference proceedings were also published by the Association for Symbolic Logic. If there's no appropriate location then delete or draftify. Shapeyness (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diura chronus

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

I don't think there's any reason an apparent synonym (even if accepted?) should have its own article. Taking to AfD instead of BLARing for other opinions. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete This is a valid species See here - the databases seem to have been clarified - I will update with a speciesbox and mod. genus page. It may have been me that I wrote "apparent synonym" as a way of flagging the problem: these anomolies sometimes crop up. Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - this appears to be a valid species - clarified on 2 databases - I can't find anything elsewhere at the moment. This should not be deleted in any case - better to redirect to genus page with explanation if it turns out not to be valid. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Organisms, and Australia. C F A 💬 21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ctenomorpha marginipennis. This is a phasmid, and as per Phasmida Species File (to my knowledge the authoritative source on the order) is a synonym for C. marginipennis. Note that the GBIF entry cited above [5] references the same diagnosis as the one cited for the accepted stick insect classification (Gray, 1833) and also cites the PSF. Gray's text clearly places the species as a phasmid [6]; of the very few Scholar hits for the combination [7], not one concerns Plecoptera. I assume that Diura was found to be preoccupied by the stonefly genus and had to be vacated, but whatever - there seems to be no current weight to considering this a valid Plecoptera taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diura - which is a valid genus and there is an explanation of this, with a link to C. marginipennis. I think @Elmidae is correct, but [i] any unsuspecting reader would look to the genus name first and [ii] there is still the anomolous GBIF entry (usually quite reliable) out there. I will put the taxobar on the talk page for future reference. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no, absolutely not. Diura chronus is an accepted synonym of Ctenomorpha marginipennis, and that is where it must redirect. We do not redirect Balaena gibbosa, a synonym for the gray whale Eschrichtius robustus, to the (existing but inapplicable) genus Balaena; we redirect it to the correct species article. GBIF itself cites the phasmid diagnosis. If anything, occurrence in the species list at the Diura page is a GBIF error, and certainly not something we ought to mirror. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be all be true and noone is contesting the fact that it is one (of several) synonyms for C. marginipennis, but evidently this also is a name which starts with "Diura". I think it is quite useful and important to point-out, especially for non-specialists, that these issues with nomenclature do occur ... Roy Bateman (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be served by redirecting the reader to a peripherally related page. Placing a note at Ctenomorpha marginipennis would be the way to do that - if there is good sourcing for details on a reassignment, which I so far have not seen. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Schiemer

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Renominating as per previous statement: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the supplied sources are not WP:SIGCOV about him LibStar (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Geisshuesler

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

A lot of the sources are merely authored by himself or primary sources from institutions where he has worked. Fails WP:PROF, a low citation count at 37 in Google scholar. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Switzerland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has published stuff, but citations to it are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, regrettably. Religious studies is not a high-citation field, but I was unable to find any reviews of his books, either. Maybe this could be revisited in a few years. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, if not SNOW keep ("exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior"). I am honestly surprised, if not appalled, at this rash decision to nominate this article for deletion. While I appreciate LibStar's efforts to trim down unnecessary new stubs about athletes and embassy branches, this scholar isn't one of them. There is comparatively little serious academic research done on Dzogchen and sky gazing. For specialists working in these areas, Geisshuesler is absolutely notable, without a doubt. This article fits perfectly when you look at everything in context: Geisshuesler figures prominently in Wikipedia articles about these kinds of topics that are inherently arcane and obscure (Nyingma Buddhism in particular). An article about him is definitely relevant and important for the WP:TIBET and WP:BUDDHISM WikiProjects. We would be doing a major disservice to these WikiProjects if we were to delete Geisshuesler on the basis of completely arbitrary, vague Wikipedia guidelines that are much more fitting for STEM scientists than for religious studies scholars.

Looking purely at raw citation counts and scores is also inherently flawed, because religious studies is a discipline where much of the most important research just doesn't get cited as much. This isn't high-impact, highly cited bioengineering or quantum computing research, so we can't simply apply the same standards to underfunded, under-represented academic disciplines.

Now look at the references cited in Sky gazing (Dzogchen) and other related articles, and the wikilinks pointing to the authors. We mostly have a bunch of generic handbooks with outdated information, non-academic sources authored by monks and new-age self-help types that disseminated by little-known New Age-type publishers, while Geisshuesler publishes with Brill Publishers, Bloomsbury Publishing, and other serious academic publishers requiring stringent peer review. This subdiscipline is in very sore need of serious academic researchers such as Geisshuesler, who bring academic objectivity and sorely needed historiography into the field. That is why it is essential to keep this article and not delete based on arbritrary interpretations of vague Wikipedia guidelines don't always serve the needs of the audience who actually need to consult these kinds of articles.

At the moment, Geisshuesler is currently Khyentse Macready Senior Lecturer of Tibetan Buddhism at the University of Sydney, not just a postdoc or research assistant, and certainly not some random yoga master trying to teach hippies about how to become enlightened via Shambhala Publications' books. None of the deletion votes above have sufficiently considered the relevance of Geisshuesler and his work in context. This article absolutely meets minimum WP:GNG and WP:NBIO criteria and is clearly very useful for readers who are interested in the history and practices of this type of Tibetan Buddhism. This is definitely a researcher who has made an impact in the field of Tibetan Buddhism studies and will continue to do so. He is currently busy submitting articles, and there will more publications coming out.

In addition, WP:TOOSOON is faulty reasoning, because it is absolutely essential to balance out biographies of octogenerian professor emerita espousing outdated views and methodologies with biographies of the newer generation of highly relevant and skilled researchers. Deleting this now and then re-publishing it again is just folly. We're just going to end up deleting and re-deleting over and over again without any religious studies specialists actually weighing in about whether he is indeed relevant or notable enough to be on Wikipedia.

We might as well delete half of all other Buddhism scholars on Wikipedia if we decide to delete Geisshuesler, as many of them aren't even as notable or relevant as he is. None of the delete voters know anything about the academic researchers who are currently working on Bon, Vajrayana, or Nyingma Buddhism. It's more than obvious than anyone who works in these fields would immediately know that Geisshuesler should absolutely not be deleted.

Please don't do a disservice to readers studying Nyingma and Vajrayana Buddhism by rashly deciding to delete this highly relevant article. We would be left with nearly nothing about Dzogchen specialists and researchers if we were to purge this article from Wikipedia.

Thanks for taking the time go through my two cents on this. Equiyamnaya (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It only applies for snow or speedy keep if there is unanimous keep votes, which it is definitely not the case. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a senior lecturer, does not meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using strong keep now, which would be relevant here. I also don't understand the sudden decision to delete this article straight out of the blue, after it has been patrolled by other reviewers. I understand the need to trim stubs about non-notable athletes or indie musicians, but a published religious studies scholar should be considered much more seriously. Equiyamnaya (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should be using snow delete the way this discussion is heading. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any article can be put up for deletion at any time. Being patrolled by other reviewers is not an exemption from this. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding notability and academic positions in Oceania. An Australian senior lecturer is the equivalent of a tenured associate professor at universities in the United States. His position is fully tenured. Please take a look at Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand). He clearly meets professor notability criteria. Equiyamnaya (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Associate professors are not granted inherent notability. Also please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reviews of the books listed in the article? Religious studies is a lower citation field, and frequently it is easier to build a case for WP:NAUTHOR than WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Equiyamnaya: Two thoughts. First, we need to separate the question of whether Geisshuesler's work is the sort of thing we should be citing in our articles on the topics he's published on (it absolutely is, in my view) from the question of whether Geisshuesler himself meets the relevant notability guidelines. Second, as Russ said (and I alluded to), given the low citation counts in religious studies (and the fact that it can be a very book-heavy discipline), a good way to show that an academic in religious studies is notable is to identify a range of published reviews of their academic books. I couldn't find any when I looked, though I admit that it wasn't an exhaustive search. I suggested this article might be here "too soon" because I guessed that even if his first book hadn't received any reviews (or awards, or similar), his second book might over the next couple of years. You said that Geisshuesler "absolutely meets minimum WP:GNG and WP:NBIO criteria". Could you please provide the reliable sources demonstrating this? (Non-exhaustive examples: book reviews, profiles, commentaries, possibly in-depth interviews, etc.) If you can do this, I'll happy support retaining the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:TOOSOON. If the subject is doing great work, then he will presumably eventually become notable, but the citation record is small (as one might expect in the low citation field), and there are no reviews apparent of the books. I'm seeing here an early career academic, who may be on a path to making an impact, but who has not made it yet. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This replaces a much shorter comment that I added earlier. I am a long time Wikipedian and an even longer time academic. I retired many years ago after an academic career that was I think somewhat more senior than the one we are discussing here. I have been clear for many years that I do not qualify for a Wikipedia article. The subject of this discussion may deserve an article in the future but he certainly does not yet deserve one. Bduke (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the nomination almost all references are self-published or are not independent or are primary. I didn't find anything during a search to establish WP:BASIC and they don't meet WP:PROF. TarnishedPath^talk 10:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Warr

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

Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search for sources in trove, google news and google books did not yield in depth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers as a valid WP:ATD. In cases like this, speedy redirecting to "List of X cricketers" seems better than starting an AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Skidmore

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search in google news and British newspaper archives did not yield any decent third party sources. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is mentioned briefly in Courier Mail here and this source may be alright but that's about all I could find, don't believe he meets WP:SPORTSCRIT as the nom says. StewdioMACK (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looked at Courier Mail and Gazette Live, and agree that even with their inclusion coverage does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT. I note that participating in a relatively obscure form of motorsport makes it harder to meet the criteria for motorsport signifance, putting the emphasis on meeting general WP:GNG requirements, which I am not satisfied is achieved. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Popplewell

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only played 1 first grade game. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched on Trove - Popplewell appears in 58 editions of "The Rugby League news" though almost all are simple team lists, there is also a brief mention in an article in "Royal Australian Navy News" (22 Aug 1969, p.15) - but no evidence of any significant coverage. EdwardUK (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for searching. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single appearance isn't a notable career, regardless of sourcing. Mn1548 (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remah Naji

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

Apparently a political candidate at an upcoming federal election in Australia. I can't see that there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there simply isn't enough press coverage to keep this article along with the fact that he hasn't been elected yet. The only notability he really has is as a candidate and a grassroots organiser. None of which are generally acceptable for notability and articles simply on unelected candidates are generally struck-down. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was clearly written for self-promotion. She is not yet a public figure and not a politician. All of the attached references also seem to be somewhat self-reported and most of the sources seem insufficient. She is not an academic despite some references to her being an 'educator' and WP:NPOL states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." 2001:8003:6DE4:E800:2414:EC58:4584:986F (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What do you mean "apparently"? They're in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, Women's Agenda, and on Serious Danger within a week of their announcement. Stop trying to use process to remove women's polticial history. User:Monjento^|Monjento 23:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: This and this are fairly in-depth but there isn't much outside of that. Political candidates are always going to have some coverage so this isn't enough to overcome NPOL and meet WP:NBASIC. I would support a draftification that can be reverted if she wins the election. C F A 💬 00:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your subjective opinion? Why are you targetting removing the history of a women of colour, who is a refugee, from a minority party contesting a seat that is marginal? Monjento (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Key word there is "marginal", meaning it's not that important. Woman of color isn't notable alone; if she wins the election, she would be notable. Paying a fee to register as a candidate doesn't get you an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not what marginal means in this context. In Australian politics, when a seat is marginal it means that it's the one to watch because of it's signficance and likelihood to change. Monjento (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So she's notable for being a candidate of colour? That doesn't get you an article either, people of all colours and creeds run in elections, everywhere. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see her meeting WP:NPOL as a political candidate. It is irrelevant that she is a woman of colour, refugee or from a minority party. She needs to meet WP:BIO which she doesn't. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is another comment that is subjective of whether the WP:BIO or WP:NPOL. Neither say how many articles are required.

It is relevant to consider those demographics in the context of the Wikipedia projects to ensure that women's history isn't erased. This is signficant in Australia, which I note that you're not from. Monjento (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that I am in or not in Australia? LibStar (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Running for office isn't notable, being from this country or that country doesn't affect notability here. Career is non-notable outside of the political run. The sources used are articles about getting to know the candidate, rather routine. She's only running in a place with 100,000 folks, which is rather tiny on a national scale. Could be notable if and when elected, just TOOSOON at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Australia. All of our electorates are this size. This comment is devoid from the reality of the Australian poltical landscape. Monjento (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100k is tiny in a country with millions, you're about the same as Canada for pete's sake Oaktree b (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't even scheduled to run in an election, she's only a declared future candidate. She paid a fee and got her name added on a list. The election hasn't been called and we don't know when it will, there is no by-election happening. She's barely even a candidate at this point; IF an election gets called AND she's still interested, she'll be on the ballot. Please read CRYSTALBALL, as that helps understand why she's not yet notable (and may or may not ever be at this point). This person may be notable at some point in the future, if an election happens... Too many if's and but's to keep the article at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Naji's significance lies in her representation of three issues of great significance in Australia especially as there will be a federal election by May 2025. Last weekend's election in the Northern Territory resulted in a very large swing against the party of the current federal government, and towards the Greens. The high level of national discontent with the Labor government over environmental policy, women's issues, and the current situation in Gaza, mmeans that Naji is in a position of overlap. Her electorate of Moreton is one of the most winnable seats for the Greens in the 2025 federal election. Australia is a middle power, and our political landscape will have an impact on our regional and international policies. Naji is an important political figure to watch. Paperbarkk (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC) — Paperbarkk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's very much what TOOSOON covers, she isn't notable now, but might be in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. The article can be recreated if she is elected. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL pretty clearly. The sources we have are rather routine in their coverage for the most part, focus on just stating who the candidate is (WP:ROUTINE coverage), or lack the depth to be of significance towards meeting notability guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails WP:NPOL. If candidate wins election, then page should be created. Ktkvtsh (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If she wins office, she'll meet NPOL and the draft can be edited and submitted via AfC or moved to mainspace. If she doesn't, the draft will probably languish and eventually be deleted. I'm not seeing a compelling reason to delete; the article has some NPOV issues but it's pretty easily salvageable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion about socking that can be discussed in the thread at ANI. Also a reminder to keep things civil. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am curious how new user Paperbarkk (talk · contribs) marks the comments of blocked user Monjento as keep. I have set up an investigation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monjento. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has that got to do with the discussion surrounding whether the page is a delete or keep? Monjento (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use of WP:SOCK another account to give the appearance of someone else sharing a very similar view to you. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Paperbarkk is not you, why did they say "Prefaced my comment with keep"? LibStar (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they also did their's

So you're going to target newcomers who join who share the same opinion? How is that in line with WP:DNB? This is honestly such a horrible experience being ganged up on by a bunch of overseas men who have no idea what's going on. Monjento (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This is honestly such a horrible experience being ganged up on by a bunch of overseas men who have no idea what's going on." WP:NPA. I think that Paperbarkk is just you as per WP:DUCK. The investigation will confirm this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monjento. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monjento, this is a worldwide project and residents of any country on Earth are just as welcome to discuss an Australian topic as Australians are. Also, men are just as welcome to discuss an article about a woman as women are. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia and you cannot attack other editors on the basis of their nationality or their sex/gender. That is an ad hominem violation of No personal attacks so stop now. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Cullen. Monjento is assuming my nationality and gender, neither of which I have disclosed. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monjento: You seem like a productive editor so I would advise owning up to using the other account. It's very clearly you. Disrupting an AfD then lying about using a sockpuppet account to continue the disruption is a good case for a block. C F A 💬 04:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Especially while Monjento is currently serving out a partial block for disruption of Remah Naji. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear NPOL failure. The suggestion made above that my colleagues are "trying to use process to remove women's polticial history" is ridiculous and offensive, and should be struck or explicitly withdrawn. Daniel (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Has potential as a major-party candidate in a winnable seat, but not ready for mainspace until notability is more firmly established (i.e. election victory or exceptional coverage of her campaign). Existing sources are more or less routine election coverage or represent coverage of broader pro-Palestine activism rather than being "about" Naji herself. I T B F 💬 08:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's draftified the editor would likely move it straight back to mainspace, like they did after it was draftified by an admin and then rejected by an AFC reviewer. See my comment below for details. TarnishedPath^talk 09:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would get speedied. No harm, no foul. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
- On 16/08/2024 with the edit at Special:Diff/1240636409 Deb moved Remah Naji to draft with edit summary "Deb moved page Remah Naji to Draft:Remah Naji without leaving a redirect: Move to draftspace (WP:DRAFTIFY): nowhere near ready for article space".
- Deb notified Monjento on their talk at Special:Diff/1240636897.
- On 17/08/2024 Monjento submitted the article to AFC with edit Special:Diff/1240645572.
- On 17/08/2024 the article was rejected by an AFC reviewer at Special:Diff/1240651098 with them leaving edit summary "*Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH)".
- On 17/08/2024 Monjento, despite the article being rejected by AFC, moved it to mainspace at Special:Diff/1240708788.
- The next edit at Special:Diff/1240708996 Monjento removed the AFC templates, including a comment left by the AFC reviewer, and left a personal attack in their edit summary writing "Removed the editorialised and uneducated opinion of someone that does not live in Australia".TarnishedPath^talk 09:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This [8] is a brief article about the individual, which seems to largely mirror the prose used here for some reason. It doesn't really show notability outside of the political run, which is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no by-election scheduled in Division of Moreton anytime soon, and an election hasn't been called in Australia and doesn't seem to be scheduled until 2025. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES, candidates for political office are rarely, if ever, notable enough to meet wikipedia notability guidelines. If Naji is elected to Parliament, then she would be notable. Bkissin (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there's not even an election happening soon? Why are we debating this then, "someone who has an intention to run at some future point in the next 18 mths in a yet uncalled election", isn't notable. Her career is rather routine otherwise and would not pass GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being named as candidates in future elections — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not running for one, and as yet unelected candidates get articles only if they can demonstrate that either (a) they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason independently of being named as a candidate, or (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those are on offer here.
Also, unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show some evidence of campaign coverage — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from NPOL then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless and unenforceable. So a candidate only becomes notable if she passes one of the two tests I noted above. And a candidate is also not exempted from NPOL just because she's female: as important as "women's political history" is, it does not require us to maintain biographical articles about every woman who ever ran as a candidate in an election she didn't win. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barney McLure

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

Non notable player, would fall under WP:NSPORT. No sources beside passing coverage in stat sheets, and an obituary. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep. Trove brings up some things that look decent, particularly [9] and [10]; also [11] and [12]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : The sources from the Trove archive in the comment above seem fine, enough to at least build a basic article about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources from the Trove archive in the comment above seem fine, enough to at least build a basic article about this person – @Oaktree b: Are you sure you want it deleted then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal coverage (including the Trove sources). 6 appearance isn't really a notable rugby career. Mn1548 (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, oh boy, I think I clicked on the wrong button the first time. Oaktree b (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate the Trove references, but to my mind they do not go far enough beyond what is in article to establish notability per WP:NSPORT: as a young man from Jindabyne he was selected to play for a club side; he played injured and had to come off; he was chosen to play fullback; he didn’t get a suspension after being sent off. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vandenberg

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Only primary sources provided, a search for his name and birth name yielded only namesakes in Google news, books and Australian database Trove. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, Netherlands, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, per Liz's note - I am unable to access the last two sources (the ones from British Newspaper Archive) and cannot assess those. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:StartGrammarTime
https://wwosbackup.proboards.com/thread/852/peter-vandenberg	?	Proboards forum	List of stats	✘ No
http://speedwayplus.com/Southampton1961.shtml		?	One picture	✘ No
https://britishspeedway.co.uk/docs/Ultimate_Index_1929-2022.pdf		? Hosted on British Speedway site, but unclear if it's been vetted	Extremely brief statistics	✘ No
https://britishspeedway.co.uk/history-archive/			Page is a list of archives; search for 'Vandenberg' has no results	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep for now. The two more promising references are missing from the source review. Historical figure. Absolutely no BLP concern. gidonb (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimon Lidsey

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. All sources provided are primary except the Eurosport article. When I read that article it contains no mention of Lidsey. A search for sources only comes up with speedway related sources which are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A world under 21 champion and rides in the highest speedway league possible. Two secondary sources have been added. Racingmanager (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd source added is a 1 line mention not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"world under 21 champion and rides in the highest speedway league possible". Neither of these facts guarantee inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacdFarmer (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Topic banned from deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)(Editor was topic banned after they made this comment. Please do not strike comments unless they are by a sock Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:SPORTBASIC (e.g. [13][14][15]) C F A 💬 23:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. [16][17] are a routine race results stories while [18] is an interview with little independent prose from the author. Alvaldi (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 paragraphs of independent coverage outside of the interview transcript in that article. Winning a race is, by definition, not routine. There's also this which is fairly in-depth. C F A 💬 14:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA The interview on sportsbloggare.com is from a blog which does not go towards notability as it is a self published source per WP:BLOGS. The mcnews.com.au article is a rehash of an article from the governing body of motorcycle sport in Australia, which is not independent of the subject. Neither of those sources go towards establishing notability. Alvaldi (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Didn't notice that. Delete. C F A 💬 16:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Langdon

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. A search under his name and "Anthony Langdon" yielded no sources. I also searched Australian database trove and it only yielded two 1 line mentions of this person. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Racingmanager (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Keep: National winner, thus pass #4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria 4 of NMOTORSPORT is not applicable to this case by any stretch of the imagination. Further, this user has since been banned from deletion discussions (ANI decision). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @5225C: But does then their comment count towards the final verdict? They were banned after they made this comment. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Rebellion in popular culture

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Popular culture, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep? It seems that this article is sourced which suggests it is notable. Is there a problem with the sources here? If not, then it's fine. Parent article is very long so a spin-out on this topic per summary style is fine, as long as the sources discuss the later cultural influence - which it seems that they do. SnowFire (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire, I just want to note that the parent article Eureka Rebellion was significantly smaller prior to Robbiegibbons first edit. In December 2020, during their first edit, it was 87k bits long. This isn't a case of an article being so long that someone came along and made some splits to make things more readable. With all these articles, plus Battle of the Eureka Stockade, which they created, and all the other associated articles they have created or edited, we are looking at over a million bytes written on this topic by this user. I recommended a higher level article first, such as Legacy of the Eureka Rebellion, which could capture a lot of this information from all these topics. Taken as a whole, I think the purpose I am trying to get at is that this all needs to be better summarized in a succinct manner. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Backing up to first principles here... so there are parts of Wikipedia that are weirdly detailed walled gardens. Some of them are celebrated as a really talented writer collecting every scrap of well-sourceable information on a topic and providing a comprehensive overview, and others are derided as "cruft" and fans run amuck. But... what's the difference? To me the answer is: reliable sources. If there is a topic with extremely deep coverage and good sources on it, mining them out in detail is fine, as long as they're not overstretched to SYNTH degrees. (Think individual Bible episodes, Shakespeare sonnets, etc., which can have entire books on 'em.) If it's just OR and old Geocities pages and primary sources and fan webpages by random independents, then it's a problem. That's why I asked "Is there a problem with the sources here?" above. If these are good sources Robbie is citing, then all of these AFDs should be closed as keep. As he's pointed out himself, we have similarly detailed articles on the Alamo and the like, so I don't find it unreasonable to believe that similarly deep sourcing exists for the Eureka Rebellion as does the Texan Revolution. Now, if it turns out that the sources are, say, print-to-demand Kindle direct books published by a random fan, or the sources are being greatly misrepresented & stretched, I could be convinced to adjust my vote toward the deletion direction. But I'd want to see evidence of that - not merely a general "this seems like too much info" vibe. (See Category:Ned Kelly or the like for an example of an Australian with a bunch of stuff related to him that is presumably valid to have.) SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In accord with SnowFire here, per WP:NEXIST, what sources exist? With a preliminary search, I can see Frost's chapter "Refighting the Eureka Stockade: Managing a Dissonant Battlefield" in Battlefield Tourism (Routeledge, 2007), Couzens' article "Cinematic visions of Australian colonial authority in Captain Thunderbolt (1953), Robbery Under Arms (1957) and Eureka Stockade (1949)" in Studies in Australasian Cinema (2016), Skilton's chapter "Mining, Masculinity, and Morality: Understanding the Australian National Imaginary Through Iconic Labor" in Gendering Nationalism (Springer 2018), Vine's chapter "Colonial Larrikins" in Larrikins, Rebels and Journalistic Freedom in Australia (Springer 2021). There's a very large amount of material on this, an event which has resonated through Australian history for more than a century and a half. This is a perfectly reasonable WP:OKFORK. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vexillology of the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is a flags of the confederacy article that is along the same lines as the one nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Climate Change&lang=en&q=Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eureka Flag. Appears to be a redundant fork; willing to change my !vote if a clear distinction in sourcing can be shown. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
realistically all this content can be merged I just thought it was handy that's all. a big percentage of the time someone looks for stuff about the eureka rebellion it relates to vexillology. if the article stands it will have a fine gallery. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White nationalism and the Eureka Rebellion

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

Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone article. For similar AFDs, see User:Gonzo fan2007/Eureka. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds offered. This seems a classic WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spin-out of a subtopic to a separate article. It's possible that it should be merged or reorganized elsewhere but if there isn't an issue with the content, then complying with WP:SIZE sometimes means making such branch articles as these. Nothing new there. It's only a content fork if the exact same matter is discussed in two different places (usually the fork applying its own unique spin on the topic), and that doesn't appear to be the case? SnowFire (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With some tightening of the text (which reads a bit too much like an essay rather than a statement of facts) this could merge with the main article on the Eureka Rebellion which has a lengthy quote about the Chinese presence but which does not explain the racial issues nearly as well as this article. Lamona (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many unnecessary WP:FORKs of the Eureka Rebellion. While it may have been a significant event in Australia we do not need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE : A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not yet had a detailed look at this, but it appears to have significant WP:OR and WP:ESSAY issues. AFAICS none of the sourcing mentions white nationalism (as opposed to racism). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Taken together these articles on the rebellion are probably notable, but the style and the titling are not appropriate for Wikipedia. With a lot of editing these could be made into a single or a few good articles, but it will take a LOT of editing. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a student of military history, I'm not particularly interested in the politics of the Eureka Rebellion myself. I was only trying to get the ball rolling. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verification and is WP:OR; the entire lede is pure WP:ESSAY. This is pretty typical of the entire piece: "Numerous authors have mentioned the antipathy of the European miners towards the presence of Asiatics on the goldfields, including Russel Ward, who has noted: "The Chinese ... were conspicuous by their absence at Eureka"" The quote from Ward demonstrates nothing about the "antipathy of European miners". Nor can I verify the source (unlisted in the bibliography); half the references cannot be verified. Per WP:NEXIST, there's no sources that I can find which speak of "white nationalism" in this context. White Nationalism is distinct from racism or, more specifically to Eureka, Sinophobia. There is definitely a stand alone article on racism and Eureka (although I think it would be better located in an article on the historiography of Eureka), but it is not this one. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it might just benefit from some copy editing. I don't see why Wikipedia won't let readers take a deep dive into the subject of the Eureka Rebellion as is the case with the series on the American revolution: https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Climate Change&lang=en&q=Template:American_Revolution_sidebar. We're talking about the best documented event in 19th century Australian history. Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not WP:OKFORK, the problem is original research. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing the original research. The use of the Eureka flag and mythology by white nationalists is well known and documented. And I am having difficulty with your assertion that white nationalism is distinct from racism ie that it is possible to be a white nationalist without being a racist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is that the article is applying a term for a contemporary phenomenon (relatively speaking) to an historical incident. If the article was about how contemporary White Nationalists deploy Eureka mythology, that might be an article (although again I'd see that more for a piece on the historiography of Eureka). However, that's not the content of this article; it is simply a discussion of racism in the context of the Eureka rebellion. I'm happy to change my view if one can show the preponderance of historians discuss the anti-Chinese incidents around the Eureka rebellion as "White Nationalism". Described as racism and xenophobia, yes, sources discuss those terms. However, White Nationalism is a far more recent term (Ngram comparison with racism) more frequently associated with *movements/parties* of the far-right, not *generalised* racism within society. I'm not aware of its general use to describe racism in mid-19th Century Australia. In the Australian context, it is initially associated with the anti-communist far right movements of the 1950s and 1960s and susequentlty applied to neo-Nazi movements (and others) in Australia from the 1970s. It's OR precisely because it's anachronistic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Lamona (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Racism and xenophobia are also recent terms. Nor is it clear that the scope of the article is restricted to the 19th century. In the lead it reads: "The Eureka Flag is often featured on bumper stickers with white nationalist political slogans, and the Australia First Party has incorporated it into their official logo. Many, including Peter Fitzsimons, have criticised such use by 'those who ludicrously brandish it as a symbol of white Australia'." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Racism and xenophobia are not absent from historians' discourse about Eureka, "white nationalism" is. Without a prepondrance of reliable sourcing to show otherwise, it's WP:SYNTHESIS to conflate the latter (white nationalism) with the former (racism and xenophobia). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, WP:V is policy - the Fitzsimons quote is among five of the six references in the lede which fail that policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it has a valid reference, then it cannot fail WP:V. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any content worth keeping, per nom the topic does seem to lack notability for a standalone article. Ben Azura (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify the merge target article you are suggesting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move content to anti-Chinese racism in Australia. Vacosea (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Body of the article has no content on modern use of the Eureka Rebellion/flag in white nationalist movements in Australia which is the ostensible subject of the article. There may well be other RS on that subject matter but an effort should be made to cover it in that article before forking if it becomes unwieldy. Parts from the intro could be incorporated into political legacy in the main article. Section about colonial attitudes towards the Chinese could be incorporated into Racism in Australia or Asian Australians if not appropriate for the Eureka Rebellion article. Chaste Krassley (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Brimblecombe

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCRIC. A player is unlikely to be notable with just 1 first class game. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verging on speedy. Nom fails to raise a case of why deletion is required when in the prod decline a valid alternative to deletion was directly identified, "a redirect to the List of Queensland first-class cricketers" WP:ATD-R. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does he meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, WP:NCRIC or indeed WP:BIO? Failing the relevant notability is grounds for deletion, that's based on my 17 years in WP. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. I did already suggest this to the nom, not only when I declined the prod but on a message at their talk page, and I'd have been perfectly happy with a bold redirect here or a discussion at the cricket wiki project followed by that. This is the long established consensus with articles about cricketers where sources cannot be found: it dates back to 2018 at least and is a clear ATD. Ideally we'd get a short note added - the content of the paragraph including the Hope quote would form the basis of this which would allow references to come across as well. Having looked for more sources, there's bit there but the only one that hinted at detail was behind a paywall and I'm pretty relaxed about people such as this being redirected if there aren't sources and an ATD exists. The number of matches played is largely irrelevant. If anyone things that they can come up with a quantitative measure to determine a "bight line criteria" for first-class cricketers then good luck to them; I'd be happy to listen to any. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has played at the highest level of domestic cricket in Australia and the expansion work done by Hack shows that 'sufficient coverage' exists to meet both WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NCRIC. --JP (Talk) 08:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are absolute guidelines. WP:NCRIC clearly says that top domestic level players may have sufficient coverage i.e. they also may not like here. WP:SPORTCRIT also asserts the need for coverage, something that this assertion has not provided. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are what the proposer has quoted as the reason for deletion. As I stated the referenced sources qualify as sufficient coverage imo. JP (Talk) 16:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. A modern day athlete from an english speaking country shouldn't have any problem having significant coverage about him if he was notable. Redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers is also acceptable. Alvaldi (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers as a valid WP:ATD. Doesn't meet WP:GNG so doesn't need a separate article, but redirect to list article is a standard outcome for these types of cricketers. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion

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

Excessive detail, list of people who for the most part played only a very minor role in the Rebellion and which doesn't add understanding or necessary background. First entry "Atkins was with the foot police at the Eureka Stockade". Second entry "he was a police orderly at the Eureka Stockade." So what? Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Police, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that The Eureka Encyclopedia has a stand-alone entry for "Policing in Ballarat" where some of the information comes from. Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse: "Calvin ... May have been at the Eureka Stockade. Athel cb (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they were listed as officially killed or injured it's hard to be certain of their status. Here's a typical entry from The Eureka Encyclopedia that shows how they deal with it:

"CULPECK, THOMAS A private in the 12th Regiment (no 2797), he was probably present during the storming of the Eureka Stockade on 3 December 1854, being in Ballarat during the third muster. He was probably the Thomas Culpeck who married Mary Putrtill in 1857 in Tasmania." Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for it to be deleted then Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually now that I think of it, what about renaming the article "Victorian police in the Eureka Rebellion" and then I'm willing to truncate it. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and improve, the topic is notable and needs to be more than a mere list of possible participants. The role of the police on the goldfields as a factor in the Eureka rebellion, their role at the stockade, and as witnesses in the Treason trials are worth documenting. Plenty of sources available beyond Eurekapedia which seems a little weak in this area. --Matilda ^talk 21:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we can similarly replace the "List of colonial forces in the Eureka Rebellion" with another article "British army in the Eureka Rebellion" that will cover the topic and contain only a much-reduced list of notable soldiers if at all. We can discuss all the really important ones in the body of the article. Robbiegibbons (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Matilda. Bduke (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [19][20][21][22] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we'll see more participation. Also, to the nominator, in the future, please provide a more comprehensive deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources I added.

Sources:

Gorman, Brigid O (23 April 2013). "Barrister's a secret singing sensation". Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
"Meet Bowie Jane". VoyageLA (Interview). 5 April 2021.
Doreian, Robyn (25 August 2013). "All out, all change". Lifestyle. The Sun-Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. p. 12. Retrieved 1 September 2024. While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star.

Bad Boy

"Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 13 October 2018. Retrieved 1 September 2024.

I also found this unreliable law profile source, with her real name:

"Miranda Ball". Meldrum's List. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The law profile notes: "Miranda's experience is extensive having run high profile White Collar Crime Litigations as both a Partner then Barrister. Her recent work includes the Bernie Madoff litigations in Bermuda & the UK, Operation Wickenby, Australian Crime Commission investigations and examinations, Special Leave Applications to the High Court of Australia, Legal Professional Privilege Claims, Constitutional Challenges, Children's Court hearings, Australian Taxation Office litigations/investigations and Coronial Inquests."

There is sufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, plus the sources identified by @Ednabrenze to allow the subject to pass the general notability guideline, requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 06:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations

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

Australia-related Miscellany for deletion

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

None at present

Australia-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Australia-related Categories for Discussion

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

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_9#Category:Extinct_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_25#Category:Squares_and_ball_games

Australia-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

Shortcut

WP:AFD/NZ

New Zealand

Regan Frame

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

Originally a PROD by User:Fram, which I fully supported. Sources have been added but none of them satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG as all are database sources or passing mentions. The subject is playing in the second tier of New Zealand and the best that I can find on him is Friends of Football. I fail to see how Frame is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Leppien

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to be enough reliable coverage at this time, appears to be WP:TOOSOON StewdioMACK (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails basic notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This player is notable as has played professional rugby union at national provincial level therefore I see no reason for deletion. FinzUp19 (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:SPORTBASIC. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 17:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Association for Logic

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

No indication of WP:NORG notability. C F A 💬 22:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Logic, Philosophy, Organizations, Geography, and Australia. C F A 💬 22:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 22:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Best source I could find is this section in A Companion to Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand. Few other brief mentions [23][24][25][26]. Probably doesn't pass GNG or NORG, but it seems to be important in history of philosophy of logic in Australia. A merge might be possible if there is a good location, maybe Australian philosophy, University of New England (Australia) or Australasian Association of Philosophy. The annual conference proceedings were also published by the Association for Symbolic Logic. If there's no appropriate location then delete or draftify. Shapeyness (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Parker (academic)

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

Non notable academic. The only non broken references are generic or links to university faculty pages, and it appears to be used self promotionally. The subjects high h-index on Google Scholar is the result of her sharing a name with a different researcher. --Spacepine (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I used IAbot to fix a broken reference. Probably notable as co-editor of an academic journal, Labour and Industry (1030-1763), although Wikipedia does not have an article on the journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, I thought I’d draw your attention to this article and suggest that an article rescue is as legitimate as creating a new one. Schwede 66 10:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Schwede66. I'll have a go at sorting out that mess of a publication list for a start. First glance at her uni profile suggests to me that she is notable (full professor is not an easy ask in New Zealand, where named chairs are not the norm), and A ranked in PBRF is a significant achievement and not something I think they'd let her say on her page if it wasn't true. DrThneed (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wrt notability I think she is notable in her field. The Big Issues In Employment is in its second edition, and was made broader in scope for the second edition. That, the chief co-editorship, the ILEA Committee membership and the leadership of a large international research collaboration (not mentioned on the page, I will add) all contribute to notability.

Wrt to improving the page: Noting that I have built her a Scholia to contain all the pubs that I've removed from the page. I've divided what's left into type of publication (as I think that is helpful for readers), and selected the publications that ResearchGate/Scopus/Google suggest are most highly cited. I'm not at all wedded to this selection though if other editors have opinions. DrThneed (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable in her field --ProudWatermelon (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Channel North Television

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

No sources. Fails WP:N. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ or redirect to List of free-to-air channels in New Zealand (though it is not mentioned there). There's this article but nothing outside of that. Fails GNG. C F A 💬 15:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or redirect to the list in see also (as CFA suggests). Sources (one mentioned by CFA): https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-tv-station-channel-north-revived/Y5COCFVXAAK7HQJEB25CVY5X3A/#google_vignette ; https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/51604/regional-tv-channel-'facing-certain-death' for example -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a bit more digging and found some more coverage ([27][28][29][30][31]), so I'd support a keep. C F A 💬 21:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on new sources. StewdioMACK (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories / Templates / etc

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Pekatahi (via WP:PROD on 5 February 2024)
Raes Junction (via WP:PROD on 4 February 2024)

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

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