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

Montague Road, Adelaide

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Insufficient sourcing with government map layers, google maps. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lower North East Road

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Article solely based on google maps and government map layers. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magill Road

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. The sources of google maps and government of South Australia map layers are insufficient. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete yet another run of the mill road in Australia. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trybooking

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

The sources are terrible with not independent reliable and broad topic coverage. This is not a notable company, at least for Wikipedia. Let zoom to some particular sources: [1] this one is a routine announcement on the not very reliable and quite niche website; [2] the same with this - it's not a reliable coverage, nor a reliable website and we need multiple sources (not a series of news from 1 website). [3] this one is almost good, aside from the fact it's slightly overfocused on the citations from the company members, but it could be okay. [4] this one is a reliable but not providing significant coverage, some interview citations and general information focused on the 10 anniversary date. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fullarton Road

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Insufficient sourcing with government map layers, google maps and street directory. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination. Unnotable road which goes for a whole 6.9 km. TarnishedPath^talk 07:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, concurrence with User:TarnishedPath in toto. Additionally, even if additional reliable sources could be found, it's still just a short road without any notability except to locals. Foxtrot620 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis West State League

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

Mentions, Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Was moved from AfC after being rejected twice, without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations

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

Since this article was created in 2011, it has been based almost entirely on citations to sources either from the ICOR itself or from its affiliate members. Attempts to find coverage in reliable secondary source turned up very little. Neither of the cited secondary sources in this article provide significant coverage, only giving the ICOR a passing reference in the wider context of another subject. A cursory Google Scholar search brought up a few self-published Marxist word documents, and one book about German political parties that only mentions the ICOR in passing.

As I have been unable to find significant coverage of this international organisation in reliable sources, and as notability is not inherited from any of its affiliated organisations, I do not think this meets the notability criteria for organisations and am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iran, India, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe there may be a language / coverage issue, as this is English Wikipedia, and there are two or three English-speaking organizations within ICOR. I will look into it this week. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most online sources I found were either non-independent or were not in-depth. The one book cited in the article was written by Stefan Engel, former chairman of the MLPD, a member organization of ICOR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not looking good for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have looked into international reports on the organization. There's a surprising amount of information surrounding the group's involvement in Syria, and the hospital that the group built. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Keep Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Castroonthemoon can cite specific sources with significant coverage, I'm leaning delete. The only mention in Swiss media is [5]. Toadspike [Talk] 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Anglia College

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not adequately supported by independent sources. An online search of this private institution produces press releases. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be one of the many small private vocational colleges in Australia that exist to make money off international students. This article in the Australian Financial Review was the best source I could find, but it's still not really SIGCOV of the college itself. Everything else I could find was a press release. And several of the sources in the article are incredibly suspicious — the author of this "article" has a profile picture that is clearly AI generated and seems to write for a whole bunch of different spammy websites. MCE89 (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89: Thank you for reviewing the article and raising valid points.

I'd like to clarify a few things regarding notability and sources:

1. **Regulatory Recognition**: Nova Anglia College is officially registered with the Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA Provider ID: PRV14356) and appears in the CRICOS registry for international education providers (Code: 04265J). This confirms the institution is legally recognized under Australian law and not merely operating for profit outside regulated standards.

2. **Academic Uniqueness**: The college offers the *Bachelor of Technology (Electric Vehicle)* (CRICOS 116433M), which is — according to multiple sources — the first non-engineering EV-specific bachelor's degree in Australia. This isn’t a standard vocational program; it represents a niche and emerging field in sustainable transport.

3. **Independent Media Coverage**: While I understand concerns about certain sources, the article includes references from *International Business Times Australia* and *ANZECOM*, which independently reported on the college’s program. These articles are not republished press releases, and while not perfect, they do meet the basic standard for WP:ORG and WP:GNG when considered in combination.

4. **About Suspicious Sources**: I agree that some sources like BigTime Daily or Forbes Scotland are not strong by Wikipedia standards, and I’m open to removing or replacing them with better citations. However, deletion may not be necessary if the content can be improved by trimming weaker sources and reinforcing stronger, regulatory-based notability.

Happy to work with the community to refine and clean up the article. Jagdishsarai (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Vocational schools are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After some pretty extensive independent research, I land here. The article subject lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. In addition, vocational schools are not notable in and of themselves. ZachH007 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZachH007: Thank you for taking the time to review.

I’d like to clarify that Nova Anglia College is **not a vocational education provider**. It is a **registered higher education institution**, regulated by the Australian Government under:

1. **TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency)** – listed under Provider ID PRV14356.

2. **CRICOS (Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students)** – Code 04265J, approved specifically to offer higher education to international students.

3. The institution offers a **Bachelor of Technology (Electric Vehicle)**, a government-accredited, three-year **higher education degree** (CRICOS Course Code 116433M), which is unique in Australia.

This places Nova Anglia College squarely under **WP:HIGHERED**, not vocational-level WP:ORG standards.

While the article can certainly benefit from trimming weaker citations, it does include **independent media coverage** (e.g., *International Business Times Australia*, *ANZECOM*) discussing its educational offerings — not just brief mentions.

I’m happy to continue improving the article to align better with sourcing and editorial tone. Jagdishsarai (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator: Thank you for starting the discussion and reviewing the article.

I’d like to clarify that Nova Anglia College is a registered higher education provider in Australia, listed under TEQSA (PRV14356) and CRICOS (04265J). The college has been featured in several reliable media sources such as *Forbes Scotland*, *International Business Times*, and *ANZECOM*, which are cited in the article. The institution also offers a government-accredited bachelor's degree in electric vehicle technology — the first of its kind in Australia — which has been independently reported on by those outlets.

I understand that notability and coverage are important, and I am happy to improve the article further if needed. Please let me know if any specific sections should be revised or strengthened.

Thanks again for your time and feedback. 2604:3D08:A67F:3B20:D56:79C0:F1AC:6030 (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mickleham Road

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

Notability is not demonstrated for this road. One of the sources is Google Maps, and the other 3 are the state government - effectively primary sources. Searching online, I only found local news articles about upgrades to the road - not much coverage in statewide or national media. As a local suburban road, I doubt it's particularly notable. – numbermaniac 07:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Road of 18.9 km length which lacks notability. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD, lacking SIGCOV in independent sources. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torrens Road

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Sources such as street directories and government of South Australia map layers do not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination. Primary sources do not establish notability. Secondary sources I found during searches did not cover the road in depth. TarnishedPath^talk 07:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Road, Adelaide

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consenus. Fails WP:GEOROAD. Most of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/ . LibStar (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some random road in Australia. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Yeah, it's a main city street, and these are almost never notable. Coverage is routine stuff which one could find about pretty much any street in any large city. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resisting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but note it's an arterial road from the western suburbs dating from when they were sandhills and swamp, not a city street. I've removed the out of date map from the infobox and added a couple of old pictures. It has an A route number so clearly the state government thinks it's important. I still support keeping it. Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Boufarhat

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

This article reads somewhat like a resume mixed with a blog, possibly because the subject, per the article, "keeps a low public profile". The references, though 30, are not predominantly about the subject; many are ammouncements about his company, and several others are general articles that mention him in passing. The few sources that are actually about him profile him for having a lot of money, either locally or in Forbes, and are not generally in depth. He does not appear to be personally notable. This is also a problematic WP:BLP, devoting a lot of space to his personal health. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United Arab Emirates, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of enduring (or even basic) notability. His brief time in a UAE school didn't really leave any footprints here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet WP:BASIC. Check 1, 2, 3, 4. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in agreement. This is a lot of by-the-numbers reporting that is mostly not about the subject. The most that can be said about him from all 4 sources is that he sold a company. FalconK (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage - and if he keeps a low profile, then maybe he doesn't want to be a public figure. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough coverage for this to be made into an article that doesn't need to be deleted.

GalStar (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One transaction rule

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

WP:DICDEF that really can simply be mentioned in Australian legal system. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a reasonable target, with a smerge of the single citation. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sentence (law) to expand on concurrent/consecutive sentences. Otherwise just stands as a WP:DICDEF // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 16:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others, although I'm not convinced of either of the targets suggested so far. Sentence (law) doesn't mention Australian law at all so I think mentioning this somewhat obscure Australian sentencing principle would be fairly out of place. Australian legal system is a much more high-level overview of the framework and origins of Australia's legal system and barely mentions criminal law. Ideally this would redirect to the article Criminal sentencing in Australia (similar to articles like Criminal sentencing in the United States and Sentencing in England and Wales), but that article does not yet exist. So I think the best place for this information for now would probably instead be Criminal law of Australia. MCE89 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got ahead of myself with my merge target suggestion. As far as I can tell, a similar rule to this one applies in multiple legal systems, including Criminal sentencing in the United States, but isn't really expanded on there or in Sentence (law), so I'd hoped that this article could provide a launching point for describing this common rule. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 10:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is more than one target article mentioned here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawley Pharmaceuticals

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

promo of nn pharma. No independent coverage. I started cutting the fluff off, then noticed that someone else last week cut it in half already, and concluded that a more drastic handling is due. --Altenmann >talk 20:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC) ([reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Aside from the promotional information that I have already eliminated, I find the topic to be significant. I believe it satisfies the criteria of WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see non-primary sources with significant coverage to satisfy GNG. --Altenmann >talk 07:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of many throw away boilerplate !votes from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not add comments (WP:VAGUEWAVE) at afd without any analysis.. As I mentioned in my vote for "Weak Keep," there are not a lot of resources available on the web. On the other hand, I have made an effort to locate references that might offer more waitage in order to satisfy Notability Standards.. [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press release, Comment from company, comment from company, passing mention, passing mention. Nothing helpful there. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - most of the sources are primary. Bearian (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - really per duffbeerforme. There's one credible study involving Androfeme, but nothing on the company itself that would satisfy GNG. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Abbott (footballer)

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

Doesn't have enough reliable / significant sources. They are mainly stat pages and one book mention. Darkm777 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Darkm777 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You don't think the 1908 card of him in the article indicates coverage? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that is not an acceptable policy based argument. Darkm777 (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG with new sources. Jevansen (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations

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

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

Australia-related Miscellany for deletion

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

None at present

Australia-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Australia-related Categories for Discussion

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

Australia-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

|}

Shortcut

WP:AFD/NZ

New Zealand

Future West

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

Not notable, no significant coverage TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; finding anything via google is difficult. GalStar (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shore Action

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

Not notable, no significant coverage. All of the sources on the page currently are either primary sources or very minor mentions, google didn't bring up anything either TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change the NZ Flag

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

Not notable, no SIGCOV TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand Front Bench

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

Not notable, very out of date anyway. Information can just be included on the main Green Party article or the individual people's articles if its relevant TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list with no independent sources and no evidence of NLIST being met. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest posting an alert to the NZ politics WikiProject to get wider input/consensus Kiwichris (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements; no more than trivial coverage of the Green party front bench as an entity in its own right. Agree with nominator that to the extent any content is relevant it can be included on the Green Party page or individual articles. As an aside, I note the article has been included in the shadow Cabinet category but that isn't really accurate. The official opposition at the moment is the Shadow Cabinet of Chris Hipkins and in practice in New Zealand it's always going to be the National or Labour party, rather than one of the smaller parties like the Greens, barring a major change in our political environment. It's hard for me to see how a list of a minor party's spokespeople could ever meet WP:NLIST. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Asian Studies Society

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

Declined prod. Unreferenced for 15 years and fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom FMSky (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Learned societies, like individual academics, are important and their articles should be kept. Our existing policies have forced the deletion of way too many articles about learned societies and other nonprofits. It's probably time to develop a more inclusive policy for learned societies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please state how it meets notability. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is interest in changing policy, an individual AfD is not the place to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any SIGCOV. If Eastmain wants to create a new SNG this isn't the place to propose it. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories / Templates / etc.

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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

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