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

DankPods

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

I'm not seeing how this YouTuber meets notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NENTERTAINER. The sourcing is very weak, mostly to blogs or blog-like sources or to user-submitted content. The tone is promotional and the article contains quite a bit of non-encyclopedic trivia such as the name of their pet snake and their collection of Pokemon cards. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Technology, Internet, and Australia. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Do you consider The Verge to be a reliable sources? And as per WP policies primary sources can be used for citing basic facts.

I believe you misread the article, the article does not talk about his collection of Pokémon cards, it says how he makes Pokémon like cards for each of the cars he reviews

if you don’t like the part about his snake, delete it DankPedia (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DankPedia, do you have a relationship with DankPods? LibStar (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. DankPedia (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar name though. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created the DankPods article and your user name coincidentally is User:DankPedia??? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the logs, this was a renaming. I do not have any personal connection with DankPods, nor have I ever met the guy in person. DankPedia (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I sympathize with the nom, I took a BOLD edit to this and I think GNG is met. I removed some of the more PROMO content Czarking0 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'''Keep''' I agree. This article should be kept. It goes, while not in depth, into facts about dankpods that should be on wikipedia. Also, we can always edit this article to make it more suitable than it already is. IIEcolor (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit, I did change the wording a bit, instead of saying he "attracted" 1.2 million followers I said he has 1.2 million subscribers

This will help with WP:NPOV, which I feel this article satisfies DankPedia (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Czarking0's edits satisfies NPOV and there are quite a few sources showing notability 174.193.137.171 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm going to say that the Sydney Morning Herald and The Verge sources barely push this over the line of notability. The other's I'm not convinced of their reliability or depth of coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yas Daniel Matbouly

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. UPE. Refs are mix of profiles and PR. scope_creep^Talk 19:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Turnbull

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

Promotional, fails WP:BIO. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Computing, and Software. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dasey

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

That's biograme is merely sourced, it's known that he works as journalist that's all there no reasons for meeting notability guidelines The Wolak (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and News media. The Wolak (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mate Colina

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

Apparently never played a game in the AFL.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that's now irrelevant. What's your relevant reason for deletion? The-Pope (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit hard to achieve something per NSPORT and satisfy GNG if you don't play. Simply being the tallest player ever signed in the league isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources exist, but are all published around the same time in September. I don't think this meets notability standards based on WP:BLP1E. The rest are statistics pages that do not make up substantial coverage. -- Recon rabbit 18:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom fails to raise a policy based argument for deletion. As an alternative one could Redirect to List of Richmond Football Club players#Other AFL-listed players. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just enough coverage for a stub. The-Pope (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 WAWFL Season

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

Well-meaning but non-notable page on a sports competition season. Clubs in the competition have established notability, but I'm not sure that notability flows onto this page - I wouldn't have thought so? Zero RSs. Fails WP:NSPORT. Cabrils (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find significant coverage on the actual season. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Taylor (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only two people with an article with a primary topic. The other two listed are a non notable musician and a non notable character. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Music, Mathematics, Disambiguations, Australia, and United States of America. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all DAB entries need to be articles themselves. It is plausible that someone searching for "Angus Taylor" might mean either the Magic Gang musician or the Halloween character, so merely hatnoting between Angus Taylor and Angus Ellis Taylor would be insufficient. That said, the Halloween character link should be through a redirect to section per MOS:DABREDIR. I'll do that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. Preimage (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dab with four valid entries (one without his own bluelink but nevertheless passing WP:DABMENTION). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Peony Press

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Searching on gscholar, archive.org found virtually nothing except content about books they published, which they do not inherit the notability of. Even for a book publisher there are also not that many hits for their books, it is almost entirely citations to one book they published (which is notable), to an extent where I was able to look through the citations relatively completely. The 4th source is sigcov... but written by the founder of the company. The single piece of independent sigcov is the 5th source in this article, which is [2] this, which is fine. But that is only 1 source. Not enough for GNG or the higher NCORP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator here. I've added three more independent sources, being a scholarly monograph, an art market paper and an obituary. It seems to me that it constitutes substantial coverage alongside the existing ones, and the fact that new research is appearing on it sixteen years after it closed is a sign of notability. Thanks! Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The monograph has a paragraph, the obituary has 1 mention. The other source has 3 sentences. Not horrible, but not enough to pass WP:NCORP. I realize Mabel Lee has an article and she is the founder so now instead of deletion I would recommend merging to Mabel Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

： Have added another source in Chinese. Of course I understand that the source base is small, but I wrote the article because I couldn't figure out what this press that had published several important writers was. Having figured out via research what it was, it seems to me very much the point of Wikipedia editing to provide that information for others. I can guarantee that it is notable for people working on translation studies in Australia, which I grant you is a small group, but we exist. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that you made this article for a good reason but the sources here do not pass WP:SIRS (required for organization articles). Notability isn't inherited from the books they publish. If it is merged the information on the publisher won't be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have added another source that I consider to be SIRS if you care to review. I suppose much of it rides on what you think is 'significant.' There are now four English IRS sources of several sentences and a fifth one in Chinese. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source is fine. Now we have the two sources about the company, but this is still not enough for WP:NCORP per WP:MULTSOURCES. The rest are one or two sentence mentions, which do not count for notability. The rest of the English sources are passing, and the Chinese source mentions them for a single sentence ( non WP:SIRS coverage). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be factual, besides the sources you don't dispute (Galik; Taylor), Brennan is by the narrowest definition four sentences and Bruno three (or four if you also include p. 121). The Chinese source mentions them not, as you write, for a single sentence, but two (it doesn't permit copy-pasting, but the section begins with 其中 and goes to footnote 6). In all of these cases the surrounding text also bears on the situation of WP in the translation and publishing environment of the day. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only sentence in the Chinese source that refers to them: "其中A.R.戴维斯的“杜甫雨诗赏析”是我读到的最好最真切的唐诗英译! 80年代初悉尼大学的Mabel Lee(陈顺妍)博士还创立了野牡丹出版社，出版了大量优秀的亚洲文学翻译作品以及早期移民的英文作品比如来自广东的Stanley Hunt先生写的《从石岐到悉尼》" [

[One of the best and most authentic English translations of Tang poems I have ever read is A.R. Davies' “An Appreciation of Du Fu's Rain Poems”! In the early 80's, Dr. Mabel Lee (Chen Shunyan) from the University of Sydney also founded the Wild Peony Press, which published a large number of excellent translations of Asian literature, as well as early immigrants' works in English, such as “From Shiqi to Sydney” written by Mr. Stanley Hunt from Guangdong.] the footnote is a citation and does not contain more sentences. The next sentence does not mention them, only Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using text on the "surrounding situation" would be WP:SYNTH.

And sentences about Lee that do not mention Peony do not count for information on the publisher. And three sentences in a single short paragraph is also not WP:SIRS ... I can't access anything in Southerly but I would be surprised if the quality of coverage was any different. Most of these sources are really about Lee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the Chinese source; I misread, apologies. As for Southerly, it isn't fair to make assumptions if you haven't read it. From p. 215 of the Southerly article:

"Considering the decline in foreign language education over the last ten years — especially those languages key to our region such as Bahasa Indonesia, Mandarin and Japanese — it might be said, in Howardspeak, monolingualism is all about a fair go. This is a sad possibility for the broader Australian community, which is in actu - ality richly polyglot. Thankfully, Mabel Lee’s and A. D. Syrokomia- Stefanowska’s work with Wild Peony has been a particular boon, bringing in work that may not have otherwise appeared, and is part of a larger, albeit under-sup ported, effort on the part of Australian translators, native-speaking collabor tors and publishers to offer foreign language literature to an Australian audience. Mabel Lee’s translations of Nobel Prize winner Gao Xingjian and Yang Lian, Simon Patton’s translations, editing and collaboration through the Chinese pages of Poetry International Web, Ouyang Yu’s work with Otherland, Peter Boyle’s translations from Spanish and French, and Leith Morton’s translations of Shuntaro Tanikawa, Ishigaki Rin, and Koike Masayo, along with various Australian literary journals (notably Heat and Southerly), and Melbourne University’s Asialink Program are some of the key recent examples of Australian translators and pub - lishers working against the abashed and embarrassed tide of Australian monolingualism. The publication of collections such as Naikan Tao and Tony Prince’s Eight Contemporary Chinese Poets, and the work of small publishers such as Wild Peony Press, are an important move against cultural parochialism. Sadly, Tao’s and Prince’s anthol - ogy represents one of the last publications for Wild Peony. It is difficult not to think, the Australian literary community might be well served supplementing the proliferation of annual Best of Australian Poetry anthologies with a Best of World Poetry or a Best of Poetry in Translation. Going by Tao’s and Prince’s Eight Contemporary Chinese Poets, the benefits would be considerable." When I say "surrounding situation" I just mean that Michael Brennan (poet) is here substantially talking about the role of Wild Peony (among other publishers) in Australian letters, even when he does not write "Wild Peony" in every sentence.WP:SYNTH does not apply and it is not all about Mabel Lee. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is about what I expected from that. I think I've said enough words so I am going to let other people comment on if this coverage is WP:SIRS compliant. Nevertheless, thank you very much for the quote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Guns of Muschu

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

No evidence filming has begun, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 08:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Guns of Muschu (novel). As far as I can tell, filming hasn't started. RLC Motion Pictures says that production has commenced and this January 2025 article says that filming should start in April, but there's nothing that says that it actually has. Neither the Facebook nor the Instagram pages for the movie contain any mention that filming has started. However even if it has, just filming isn't enough to pass NFF - we would need to be able to show where the filming was notable per coverage in independent and reliable sources. There really isn't much out there beyond the initial announcement that the book would be adapted.

So in the meantime the film can redirect to the book page - however given that the book would be the only article with this title I am actually proposing that we move the book article to The Guns of Muschu and create a new redirect, "The Guns of Muschu (film)", which would redirect to the article. If the film releases and becomes more notable than the book, the move can always be reversed. It's just that there are never any guarantees that a film will be made and if it does, that it will even be released. The film industry is filled with various movies that were called off at various forms of production - and few of them really warrant an article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move this to The Guns of Muschu (film), maybe merge the one sentence about the cast, make the novel the primary topic, and redirect to it. I can't find anything substantial beyond the coverage from the announcement a year ago, so this is better covered as a brief mention in the novel's article. hinnk (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thiel

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

The only source for this football player is a bio from his club. I was unable to find any independent sources, including on the wikipedia library. It's possible there's something older and non-digitized that I'm missing, but I've had no luck at all. — Moriwen (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. — Moriwen (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article is about an Australian rules footballer. Svartner (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found 1 article on Newsbank, but Australian online coverage from the 1980s is extremely poor, and even recent Adelaide papers are behind paywalls. Absolutely guaranteed that there is a heap of coverage offline of a ten year player, twice winning the premiership, and dying young. The-Pope (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Powerlifting Alliance

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

The article is almost entirely based on primary sources. A search for third party sources reveals just 1 google news hit. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any independent WP:SIGCOV in various searches. --Here2rewrite (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Photonics Network

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find anything to suggest it passes WP:GNG. The article in The Age confirms that it was involved in redesigning the Victorian physics curriculum, but only provides a passing mention. I wasn't able to find anything else of note. MCE89 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Harding

AfDs for this article:

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

Just a year ago, this page was redirected following an AfD discussion due to lack of WP:GNG-qualifying coverage and a failure to pass WP:NPOL. The page has been recreated at much greater length but I am not seeing the kind of WP:SIGCOV we need to see. To the extent there is any secondary coverage here, it is either local coverage that is limited to her role as mayor or a mayoral candidate ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:ROUTINE election coverage ([9], [10]). I am concerned that this article also fails WP:NOT by constituting WP:OR, considering the extensive use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, including official bios or statements ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]), primary source election results ([19], [20], [21]), and the subject's own Facebook posts ([22], [23], [24]). There is also a high likelihood of WP:SYNTH given the page creator's use of several sources that do not even mention Harding ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29]). I see no warrant for a standalone page here and seek a fresh consensus for a redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough information to establish notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the previous AfD, she did get a fair bit of national media coverage earlier this year for a brief period after the council tried to pass a rule to gag her: e.g. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. There's also this piece in The Australian, which is probably slightly better than anything the article currently cites. I'm not convinced yet that it's quite enough to satisfy GNG, but all of the recent corruption in the Ipswich council does mean there's a little bit more non-routine and non-local coverage than I'd otherwise expect. MCE89 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite new to writing articles on Wikipedia, but this feels premature as I am currently in the process of completing this and clearly haven't finished it. As the first Mayor of Ipswich following the unprecedented dismissal of the entire council, Teresa Harding is undoubtedly a significant political figure, not only within her city but in Queensland local government more broadly. She assumed leadership at a time of crisis and undertook systemic reforms aimed at restoring public trust in local government – reforms that have received both national media attention and industry recognition.

Harding’s creation of the Transparency and Integrity Hub was widely reported on as an Australian first in public sector accountability, and the platform has since gone on to win multiple awards for excellence in governance. Her leadership in transparency and open government has been cited as a model across local councils nationwide — this is not routine coverage. It's coverage directly tied to reforms that positioned Ipswich as a benchmark for integrity in public service.

She has been profiled and quoted in national publications (e.g. The Australian, ABC News, and Brisbane Times) on issues beyond just local council matters, such as integrity, government reform, and the broader challenges facing local government post-administration.

These are not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or strictly WP:LOCAL stories. There is sustained, significant, and thematic coverage of Harding's efforts as a reformist figure in a city recovering from major scandal. Furthermore, WP:NPOL outlines that political figures merit a standalone article when they have held a significant office, especially when their work has attracted meaningful coverage. The role of Mayor of Ipswich — one of Queensland’s largest and most politically scrutinised cities — clearly meets this threshold. The fact that Harding's governance is the subject of national discussion and awards only further reinforces this.

Yes, the article (like many local politician entries) includes primary sources — but these are verifiable and properly cited alongside reputable secondary sources. If you want more, allow me the oppurtunity TO add more. It is unreasonable to dismiss a subject’s notability purely because official council statements or bios are included for factual grounding. The argument of WP:SYNTH also does not apply where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material.

To remove a page like this, particularly when Harding remains in office and continues to garner national attention, seems premature and contrary to WP’s mission of documenting notable public figures whose actions affect Australian governance.

Let’s improve the article, not delete it. Remarka6le (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH absolutely applies where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material. If you are drawing context that's not present in secondary sources on Harding, you are engaged in original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I believe your interpretation of WP:SYNTH is being applied too rigidly here. The policy does not prohibit contextually relevant information so long as each piece is verifiable and used within its intended scope. None of the sources in question ([23]–[27]) are being used to draw conclusions about Harding herself that are not explicitly supported by the sources. They are used to establish a critical and well-documented event: the sacking of Ipswich City Council.

The policy on synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is only violated when sources are combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. But in this case, the sources all clearly state that the council was dismissed due to systemic misconduct, and that a period of administration followed. That is an undisputed historical fact, covered broadly and independently in reliable media — including at the national level. Stating that Harding was elected as mayor following that event is not original analysis; it’s chronology.

Wikipedia:No original research even clarifies that "rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." That’s precisely what’s been done here. There’s no leap in logic, no implied conclusion, and certainly no novel interpretation. It’s simply a well-sourced recounting of events that are directly relevant to Harding’s notability as the first post-dismissal mayor.

What would constitute a violation is failing to cite those events and instead summarising them unsourced — which would make the article unverifiable. The argument that mentioning the context of her office constitutes SYNTH would set a troubling precedent: it would mean we couldn’t refer to major public events unless every article about every individual involved was named explicitly in the same source. That’s not how encyclopaedic writing works, nor how WP:NOR is intended to function. Remarka6le (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Even if there is more non-routine coverage, this is basically a promotional biography and not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concern around promotional tone, but I’d argue that’s a solvable issue through collaborative editing, not a reason for deletion or redirection.

If there are parts of the article that read as promotional, strip back the tone, add balance, and bring in more neutral language where needed. That’s exactly what Wikipedia’s editing process is for. Deleting the entire article — especially when there is now more non-routine, nationally relevant coverage — feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Redirecting to List of Mayors of Ipswich also isn’t a constructive alternative. That page is a shell — it lacks meaningful detail, context, or the capacity to fairly represent Harding’s role. Collapsing a complex and award-winning tenure into a bullet point does a disservice to readers and the subject. Remarka6le (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of sources [23] to [27] — these are not being used to make claims about Harding personally, but rather to establish the extraordinary circumstances surrounding her election. As the first mayor following the dismissal of Ipswich City Council for systemic misconduct and corruption, Harding's role cannot be meaningfully understood without reference to that context.

The scale of the council’s dismissal is directly relevant to the significance of Harding’s office. It is not possible, nor responsible, to write about a reform mayor brought in after a scandal of this size without referencing the event that made her election necessary in the first place.

Wikipedia requires verifiability — I can’t simply say “she was elected after the council was sacked” without reliable sources to confirm that. That’s exactly what [23]–[27] provide. They document the reasons for the council’s dismissal and form the factual, contextual bedrock for understanding Harding’s tenure.

Removing those references or dismissing them as unrelated misunderstands how context works in biographical writing. Harding’s notability is inextricably linked to the fallout of the corruption scandal. That context isn’t WP:SYNTH — it’s essential, and well-sourced. Remarka6le (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: just being a local mayor does not mean a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The "best" articles here (ABC) were in the "local politics" section. I just don't think they're enough to show Wikipedia notability, since all local politicians receive at least some coverage. Also if you are new here, please familiarise yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. I do not think you are bludgeoning yet, and you are allowed to argue your point, but it is a good policy to know. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no secondary sources about Harding say that she was elected after the council was sacked, then Wikipedia shouldn't say that. To use primary sources or sources that don't mention her to make that claim about her is a form of WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The council’s dismissal is a well-sourced public fact. Using those sources to establish a timeline is not WP:OR — it’s verifiable background. No interpretation is being added. Saying “she was elected after the dismissal” is a factual, time-based statement that doesn’t require the dismissal and Harding to be in the same sentence in a source to be accurate, as long as both are independently cited. That’s consistent with policy. Remarka6le (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO/ and WP:No original research. @Remarka6le Promotional tone falls under a specific WP:NOT guideline (the page that details what we DO NOT INCLUDE). Promotional tone is a clearly deletable offense under policy. Additionally, the sourcing is borderline; leaning in my opinion on the fail side on whether this meets WP:SIGCOV. To rescue this article it would require a complete rewrite to comply with wikipedia's policies against promoting the subject with an eye/ear towards maintaining an encyclopedic tone that is neutral and written in an impartial manner. Better sourcing is also needed to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH policies per the concerns raised by DClemens . Leaving an article in this state in mainspace is not an option. A possible WP:ATD would be to draftify and require it to pass an WP:AFC review prior to moving back to main space. That would give interested editors time to fix the tone, original synthesis, and sourcing issues, and provide a necessary review process to ensure basic standards are met before the page goes live again.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d absolutely be open to the article being draftified and going through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, rather than it being deleted outright. That seems like a far more constructive outcome, especially given that there are editors (myself included) willing to work on improving the tone, structure, and sourcing to bring it up to standard. Remarka6le (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify – Teresa Harding's tenure as Mayor of Ipswich is marked by significant reforms, notably the launch of Australia's first local government Transparency and Integrity Hub. This initiative has received national accolades, including the Smart Cities Australia-New Zealand award, and has been instrumental in restoring public trust post the 2018 council dismissal. Given her role in pioneering open governance and the sustained, non-trivial coverage of her efforts, Harding meets the WP:POLITICIANS notability criteria. I support draftification and review through the WP:AFC process to enhance the article's quality and compliance with Wikipedia standards. Remarka6le (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep preferably but Draftify if necessary. The mayor of a municipality of 200,000 is obviously notable and there is plenty of coverage just from the public broadcaster and the national press alone. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-31/qld-paul-tully-ipswich-city-council-mayor-gag-allegation/104877954 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-28/ipswich-council-teresa-harding-paul-tully-media-gag/104866348 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fpolitics%2Fnew-ipswich-mayor-teresa-harding-cleans-closet-after-corruption-investigation%2Fnews-story%2F8cf83650b8a985c2ca1a236443871058&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-1-NOSCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append
Draftify: Again, this subject fails all ramifications of NPOL. That being said, the criteria for GNG is also not satisfied (multiple independent, reliable, and substantial coverages). Dclemens gave a proper analysis above as to why. This would need to go through AfC if for nothing else, for surety that GNG is met before acceptance, of course, unless she occupies a NPOL-notable office in the future. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Draftify – The article on Teresa Harding appears to meet the criteria set out in WP:SIGCOV, based on the sources currently cited. Deletion does not seem warranted. That said, if there are concerns about notability depth or article quality, draftification could be a suitable interim step. — DroneStar87 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am OK with draftify as an option for the page creator to demonstrate notability, along with a recommendation to submit through AfC so we're not right back here if this gets moved unilaterally to mainspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all politicians receive some sort of significant coverage, so we look at the depth of coverage especially for local positions per WP:NPOL. Given this vote is (possibly) your first edit, that may not be obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Guild of Music & Speech

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

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

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

Hi GTrang,

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

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

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

Delete Nothing in google news or books. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that until 2024, this organisation was named the Australian Guild of Music Education, so most sources will be under that name. I am currently looking for sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Keep. My opinion that the company passes WP:NCORP hasn't changed since the previous AfD. And thanks to Commander Keane for their work on cleaning up the article. Linking the sources I presented in the previous AfD again for reference: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. And as Commander Keane notes, there are even more good sources from The Australian, the Australian Financial Review and others on Proquest. MCE89 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Satisfies GNG
1	Australian Financial Review	Paywalled report of purchase of a building	Yes	Probably	Yes	Probably	No. Fails verifiability.
2	www.smh.com.au	Discussion of recent activity by company	Yes	Yes, just barely	Yes	Yes	Yes
3	Australian Financial Review	Paywalled	Yes	Probably	Yes	Probably	No. Fails verifiability.

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

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

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

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Lindsay, Nicole (14 March 2018). "Quintessential's opportunity fund ready to roll". The Sydney Morning Herald. (also in current article)	– I would say between 40 to 80 percent of the article is quotes from the company, but I am willing to tentatively accept it on ORGIND	– The bigger issue is that the non-quote content is heavily WP:ORGTRIV	– and I am not fully convinced that it demonstrates the author's own analysis or evaluation	—
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2476776820)	–	– Fairly similar to the above, maybe slightly better in terms of detail. If these are the best sources available, I would be inclined to exclude	–	—
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 3074029294) (also currently ref 3)	I am inclined to assess this one as fully meeting ORGIND	but it falls further from addressing the company itself directly or in-detail	– realistically, there is analysis here, and good analysis, but more about the (CBD office) real estate market than any of the companies
Lenaghan, Nick (22 September 2014). "Quintessential time to sell-five asset portfolio". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1748982798)	–	Less detailed than the other Lenaghan article, or the SMH. Not much to say.	–
Thomson, James (8 March 2024). "Meet the bravest investor in office property". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest has 3 different versions, 3063607564 is one)	The way I see it, this is one of your usual CEO puff pieces
Tauriello, Giuseppe (26 February 2025). "Port Adelaide Distribution Centre expected to fetch $220m". The Australian.	–	– I would disagree this has meaningful independent analysis, but it's not significantly worse than the SMH. I would place it between that and the 2014 Lenaghan.	–	—
Wilmot, Ben (3 July 2024). "Quintessential agrees to pay $250m for Brisbane CBD tower". The Australian. (ProQuest 3074848171)		– Actually relatively good on the other criteria, but it's not clear to me we can say much about the company with the content therein		—
and I think I'll finish off my first round of reviews with ref 1 currently in the article, since the other two were already listed: Schlesinger, Larry (4 March 2015). "Quintessential Equity pays $32m for 360 Capital's Canberra building". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1747550524)	–	Less detailed, less analysis. I would rate it below the 2014 Lenaghan.
For my second round or reviews, we'll start with the one Commander Keane noted as promising, which I believe would be: Brown, Greg (22 August 2013). "Shane Quinn won't yield on incentives". The Australian. (ProQuest 1426541389)	Virtually entirely "he says" from the co-founder which would typically be considered to fail the second half of WP:ORGIND	–	–
Lenaghan, Nick (24 March 2021). "Quintessential Equity arrives in North Ryde". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2504294758)	Look, the main issue with these "We bought this, this is why this is a good deal for us" (other than the fact that they're mostly quotes)	is, of course they're going to make vague waves about how they're a good company doing good deals. No investment manager is going to go up to a news company and say "here's how we do a bad job with our clients' money".	– There's analysis here, but almost all of it is "invest in us, here is what we say our strategy is, it's very good", and it's from the company.
Lenaghan, Nick (17 March 2021). "Quintessential wins jewel in Adelaide's high-tech precinct". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 2501830229)	– I think I would put this at around the Tauriello article.	– The last and 5th from last paragraphs are mostly what I'd look at. Though, I wonder if looking at all the (marginal) Lenaghan articles as a single source could be an option.	–	—
Lenaghan, Nick (18 June 2014). "Quintessential considers Canberra buys essential". Australian Financial Review. (ProQuest 1749585511)		I would say this is less useful than the (other) 2014 and North Ryde articles by Lenaghan, and would not have useful content even if combined.	–
"Quintessential wins $120m WorkSafe building in Geelong". Australian Financial Review. 16 February 2016. (ProQuest 1765335569)	–	I don't think the middle bit is useful SIGCOV for this company, and the rest is ORGTRIV stuff.	–
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.	–	– Honestly I think this one might be the best one yet, either that or the Visy article by Lenaghan	–	—
Johanson, Simon (10 November 2015). "Cashed-up investors prompt funds managers to sell". The Sydney Morning Herald.	–	I would say this is something like the Schlesinger article, where there is not enough directly about the company, out of the independent secondary content.	–
Tauriello, Giuseppe (7 November 2023). "Quintessential secures third tenant for upgraded Telstra building". The Australian. (ProQuest 2887105309)	–	– Slightly worse than the other Tauriello article, and I don't think combining the two would help much even if we wanted to do that.	–	—
Wilmot, Ben (23 September 2014). "Quintessential in $90m sell-off". The Australian. (ProQuest 1563927930)	I was about to mark it as fully passing ORGIND until I realised Bishop was the person handling the sale (it did say that in the article, just missed it initially)	This is really the heart of ORGTRIV, where the only information in there is useful about that one specific transaction.	–

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

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

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

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

Comment.
- Article I mentioned above (@User:Alpha3031): "'Quinn won't yield on incentives' Brown, Greg. The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T.. 22 Aug 2013: 33" [50] (hopefully that TWL link works) was the article I was talking about. It is not groundbreaking, just better or equal to the others.
- Source searching: There may be more, who knows. It must be exhausting to review all sources presented, it may be easier to browse through the better ones and evaluate them. The CEO puff piece (#5 in the table above) was a newspaper's blog/website according ProQuest, the evaluation was inevitable.
- Passing comment: I said in the DRV that notability guides are about guessing if an article meets content policies, but I can see it is also something of a "I don't like it" stamp. That's fine, it is just frustrating to me that if this gets deleted I will be the only one with access to the information. Particularly the paywalled stuff. Newspapers showed some interest beyond casual buy/sell mentions. There is good stuff across various sources and we can put together an article, but we don't want to.
- Ponderance: This is the silly "other stuff exists" argument but I saw Michael Tritter (a minor character on a TV show) on the Main page. We like the source coverage there apparently. We are the encyclopedia of 2000s American TV shows but not of 2000s Australian businesses.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think ORGIND and NORG in general has been tightening in response to spam over the years, and there is an argument that we could have gone too far, but at the moment the balance is a considerably stricter standard than other topic areas which probably deletes some articles which are probably not too spammy but still probably lets a lot of spam through. Hard balance to strike. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tables above focus on certain attributes of a source but omit two vital elements for NCORP criteria which are easy to overlook if the focus is on GNG only - in-depth and "independent content" about the company. Rules out stuff like regurgitated announcements and advertorials, a good source will have in-depth independent analysis/commentary/etc. None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to Alpha3031, I didn't spot your coverage of the 2013 article in the middle of your table. It is nearly all co-founder quotes.

I think HighKing's point may be summed up by the final part of WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation.... I accept that from what I have seen, no journalist has sat down and done this properly (as reflected in the table above). There is public interest in the company (hence the sustained coverage), there is enough to create a useful article (I personally found interesting coverage going beyond triviality) but perhaps the overarching concern is that a neutral article cannot be written without thorough journalistic opinion, analysis and investigation? I can empathise with the fear of being overrun with articles and this is a reasonable argument.

The strength of Wikipedia can be in bringing sources together to cover a topic, but the golden nugget exposé source for this company may not exist. It is hard for me to accept the deletion of knowledge that has value. Commander Keane (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the source analysis by Alpha3031 is extremely reasonable. I am still of the opinion that enough of the sources meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND to satisfy NCORP, but I think reasonable minds may differ on precise interpretations of those guidelines for some of these sources. I've summarised my reasoning for three of the sources that we agree are among the most promising, plus this new one I found, in the table below.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Wilmot, Ben (19 April 2023). "Brookfield wins interest in $300m Brisbane tower". The Australian.	This one is clearly independent, as all of the parties involved declined to comment given that their negotiations were ongoing at the time	Tells us that Quintessential is considered a savvy buyer with a focus on quality assets, that it is looking for an exposure to the city which is expected to benefit from the 2032 Olympics, and that the boutique property house has been linked to a series of office deals amid a change in the investment cycle. It also distinguishes this potential deal from Quintessential's past purchase strategy, saying that its most recent purchase in Adelaide was a refurbishment and repositioning play while this Brisbane building is in the luxury market	Provides secondary analysis of what the potential deal says about the market and about Quintessential's strategy
Schlesinger, Larry (1 July 2024). "Quintessential's $250m Brisbane office deal confirms valuation slump". Australian Financial Review.		I disagree that this one falls short of addressing Quintessential itself directly. It says that Quintessential is one of the few investor groups buying up CBD office towers, and that its thesis for doing so is based around securing them at or near the bottom of the market and in better performing markets such as Brisbane where vacancy rates are lower and A-Grade rents are still rising amid a flight to quality. It also says that it is able to do so because of its loyal investor base and that part of its motivation for its purchases is to improve its ESG credentials.	Strikes me as providing meaningful secondary analysis regarding the author's thesis for why Quintessential is one of the few investors buying CBD office towers
Johanson, Simon (16 February 2016). "Quintessential wins bid for Geelong's WorkSafe office". The Sydney Morning Herald.	Contains one brief quote, but I don't see any reason to doubt its independence	Explains what is distinct about Quintessential's strategy - that it has stamped a presence in the office space by buying, regenerating and re-leasing older buildings in Canberra and NSW to government and other tenants - and provides an overview of its historical purchases and development pipeline.	This appears to be original, secondary analysis of the company's historical buying strategy and a brief overview of its pipeline
Lenaghan, Nick (11 January 2021). "Quintessential wins big on Visy deal". Australian Financial Review.	Slightly more quote-heavy, but not enough to meaningfully undermine its independence in my view	Places this particular lease in the context of the longer-term view the fund manager and syndicator is taking on the prospect of disruption in the industrial market, giving some analysis of what this disruption might look like, and explains that Quintessential’s strategy is to acquire and regenerate value-add and core-plus commercial office and industrial properties in CBD and city fringe markets.	This also strikes me as original, secondary analysis by the article's author, explaining how this particular deal connects to other purchases that Quintessential has made and that it "vindicates" Quintessential's original purchase of the asset.

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

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

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

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

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

Hey (u|DCsansei}}, there's been a lot of discussion ranging over many weeks involving the references listed by MCE89. I've pointed out why those sources fail GNG/NCORP. Your !vote is very vague and potentially meaningless since it doesn't attempt to engage in any discussion. Can you perhaps try to identify which sources meet NCORP/ORGIND by reference to particular paragraphs? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many more news articles about Quintessential Equity. https://www.quintessential.com.au/news/
Delete I don't see much independent coverage or establishing notability. Previous AFD result still applies. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my opinion of the conflicting source analyses above. FYI: The Australian Financial Review is well-respected and in the top 10 Australian newspapers in circulation and plays a similar role in Australia to The Economist or The Wall Street Journal. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "well-respected" newspaper goes to whether the publisher is a reliable source. We're assuming all of the sources being discussed are reliable, what we're now looking at is whether the content of the article contains in-depth "independent content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Launch Vehicle

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 04:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge or Draftify: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [51], [52], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. Given this, a merge into ~~Australian Space Agency~~ a broader topic would preserve this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE, or it could be draftified for further development and sourcing. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Revised !vote HerBauhaus (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added 4 refs from Google Scholar. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep - lots of refs using Google.com.au.^link --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping: @Ethmostigmus, @Hal Nordmann, @HerBauhaus. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, two of the refs you added are duplicates of a reference already in the article (Schutte and Thoreau's "The Austral Launch Vehicle: 2014 Progress in Reducing Space Transportation Cost through Reusability, Modularity and Simplicity"), I assume this was a mistake. The third reference I see you've added, Preller and Smart's "SPARTAN: Scramjet Powered Accelerator for Reusable Technology AdvaNcement", is a conference paper that only briefly mentions the ALV. Both Schutte and Thoreau's paper and Preller and Smart's paper were presented at the same conference, the 12th Reinventing Space Conference that was held in 2014 (they are listed online as being published in 2016/2017, but this is just when the proceedings were made available online - the actual papers were presented in 2014). The fourth reference, "Scramjets for Reusable Launch of Small Satellites" also by Preller and Smart, also seems to only be a passing mention. That gives us two papers from 2014 and one from 2015. Looking at those references and the Google results, I can't find any evidence of further developments since 2015, and even at the time the coverage was quite minimal. This is worth noting because it indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I maintain that this fails GNG, and is best covered with due weight in an existing article like reusable launch vehicle. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @A. B., I've coincidentally stumbled across the same sources you added as part of my !vote review. The rub here is that all the authors, including Peter Thoreau, Michael Smart, and Dawid Preller from the University of Queensland, and Adriaan Schutte from Heliaq Advanced Engineering, are directly affiliated with the institutions that developed the ALV concept. Since the ALV was created by Heliaq Advanced Engineering and the University of Queensland, I’ve classified these as primary sources. That said, if I’ve been too strict with my interpretation of secondary sources, I’m more than happy to revisit the sourcing question again. HerBauhaus (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I’ve been convinced this just had to be notable; something about rockets and space just begs press coverage but where was it on Google News?? Then I thought to check http://www.google.com.au -sure enough, there were news articles. It was late last night and I’m busy today; I may or may not get to it. Thanks for looking at this, HerBauhaus. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being accused of "ref-bombing", I have added 7 news articles including Australian Financial Review, the ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Royal Aeronautical Society and Aviation Week & Space Technology (the global aerospace and aviation industry magazine) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After checking through all of the references you've added, I still do not see evidence of significant or sustained independent coverage. Every source was published between 2014 and 2017, seemingly because the project stalled after that point, and even within that period of active development the coverage is scant. Preller and Smart's works barely mention the ALV, while the ABC and AFR articles mention it only in passing. Aerospace magazine gives a bit more detail, but its coverage is still extremely brief (and focused on SPARTAN, not the ALV). The iTnews article also provides no significant coverage of the ALV, mostly consists of quotes from individuals involved in the project about the potential of reusable launch vehicles. Ditto for the articles in the Register and New Atlas. None of these sources, besides the initial three (non-independent) sources already present in the article, provide coverage that could be considered significant. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources disagree on terminology. In some articles, the SPARTAN second stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "Austral Launch Vehicle" project. In others, the Austral Launch Vehicle first stage is part of the overall 3-stage project known as the "SPARTAN" project.

What I know is that the overall 3-stage project is notable. Perhaps the answer is to rename this article to something else. I'm open to suggestions.

I'm also open to draftifying the article and I will work on it. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens.

It looks like a company formed in 2019, Hypersonix Launch Systems, took over work on the SPARTAN second stage and tested it in 2021. This project, Heliaq Advanced Engineering (ALV's original developer now defunct?) and Hypersonix all have close ties to the University of Queensland's Centre for Hypersonics.

Also in 2021, the U.S., U.K. and Australia signed the AUKUS agreement in 2021; it included "Hypersonic and Counter-Hypersonic Capabilities" which built on the existing joint U.S.-Australian SCIFiRE hypersonic cruise missile project. The University of Queensland is involved in this as well.

At the time, hypersonics was touted as Australia's flagship contribution to an agreeement that was mostly about nuclear submarine technology.

I'm just guessing but Hypersonix and U of Q probably shifted to much more lucrative defense work and away from competing with SpaceX and everyone else. All 3 countries are far behind Russia and China in hypersonic capabilities.

Collectively all this content is notable and needs a good home on Wikipedia. I'm not sure where -- suggestions? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help with any of the heavy lifting if you decide to draftify. Feel free to ping me for sourcing or the write-up. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A. B., the first 7 (existing) sources in the article are from researchers Smart, Schutte, Thoreau, and Preller, all directly tied to UQ/HAE and the ALV project, making them primary sources. Of the next 7 (new) sources you added, only two are solid WP:THREE candidates: The Register offers clear, independent coverage of ALV, and Financial Review provides balanced coverage, though it includes a few quotes from Smart. Three are borderline: ABC is heavily reliant on Smart's quotes, Aviation Week gives technical context but doesn’t focus on ALV, and New Atlas covers ALV under the broader SPARTAN project with heavy developer input. The remaining two, AEROSPACE and iTnews, are weak as they rely almost entirely on developer statements. To be fair, by Australian standards, Smart is not just a typical researcher. He’s a recognized expert in hypersonics who spent a decade at NASA before joining UQ ([53]), which is quite an uncommon profile. This prominence likely explains why he appears in nearly every source on ALV, sometimes tipping the balance on journalistic independence. HerBauhaus (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations

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

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

Australia-related Miscellany for deletion

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

None at present

Australia-related Templates for Deletion

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

None at present

Australia-related Categories for Discussion

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

Australia-related Deletion Review

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

None at present

|}

Shortcut

WP:AFD/NZ

New Zealand

Chris Lonsdale (entrepreneur)

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

Only 1 article links to this. Seems rather promotional. Marked for COI concerns noting edits from this editor. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, China, Hong Kong, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOM. Appears promotional, with little to justify an article. Even with the terribly low bar for WP:GNG, this article appears to fail. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Noble (computer scientist)

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

Self-published article; notability not established Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The award might be notable, but there is nothing to be found in Gbooks, scholar or Jstor. Gnews also has nothing. The article is unsourced, so could be a hoax? There is nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b can you have a look at his https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners GS profile] for re-evaluation, he seems clearly notable in my book. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a ton more sourcing than that, we still need sources that talk about the person Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b no we dont, this is a WP:NPROF evaluation. --hroest 19:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One source showing he won a prize still isn't enough sourcing, it indicates a pass at notability. I'm trying to avoid permastub articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on.

Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." Sources, plural, indicating at least two. I still don't see those. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need independent sources for his h-index and the award. These are provided by Google Scholar, Scopus and the organization that provides the award (independent from the subject). This is exactly how the guidelines are supposed to work. To clarify: the subject cannot just upload a CV to his institution and claim to be a highly respected and highly cited professor. However, if independent sources confirm that he got an award and is highly cited, then this criteria is fulfilled. --hroest 01:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is clearly not a hoax which some WP:BEFORE shows. The GS profile shows an respectable h index of 57 which is way above our usual threshold and more than 20 papers with 100+ citations, thus satisfying WP:NPROF#1. Plus he also won the Dahl-Nygaard Prize contributing to WP:NPROF#2 - overall I see a profile that is substantially stronger than most other AfD candidates that end up being kept and I cannot follow the arguments for deletion here. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your GS profile link goes elsewhere; I think you want this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not attain notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). His racist (see 2022 deletion) views in themselves are not relevant but they illustrate the use he is making of this article for promotion of political views. This is confirmed by his edit today at Waitangi Tribunal, where his edit cannot be attributed to ignorance or a good faith error, due to his background in academia. The one secondary source provided is of low quality and focuses on only one event, in 2016. Even if accepted as a genuine RSS, because it is only one event, he is not deemed notable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy Protect PROMO RACIST per nom. BLP1E. POV

why this is still here? - this article is well below multiple criteria for speedy deletion (G10, G11, A6, A7) as well as notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT).

In particular, the only reference cited by the wikipedia page has no actual information on the subject! That should be more than enough to get rid of this (as if the rest of it wasn't enough). Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning a prize is not enough to make a whole article. As it stands it's barely enough for a stub. What notable contributions to computer science has he made? What has he published? I realize that Google Scholar could probably shed light on these questions, but it's the author's job to study these. Athel cb (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy... Jameskjx (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost the entire discussion above is predicated on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, when he should be evaluated against WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG and does not require independent sourcing. The nomination statement is worse, as says nothing about WP:BEFORE evaluation against notability criteria beyond the merest WP:VAGUEWAVE. His citation record passes WP:PROF#C1. "Founding Editor-In-Chief of the journal Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming" (removed as part of large-scale gutting of the article by the deletion nominator) passes WP:PROF#C8. Fellow of the Institute of IT Professionals of New Zealand and the British Computer Society could well pass WP:PROF#C3 depending how selective they are. Full professorship in the UK system operating at NZ universities is somewhat more selective than at US universities and may be a step towards #C5, although I think not a full step in that direction. The award is a pass of WP:PROF#C2 (for the senior-level award, the one he has; the junior one wouldn't be): we describe it as a highly prestigious in its area (software engineering, a major subfield of computer science) and every winner is bluelinked, significant evidence for its prestigiousness. Deleting this article would make him the only non-linked winner. He may have expressed distasteful views in his social media but that is not part of the article and not an argument for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes WP:PROF per David Eppstein's analysis, so I would normally be in favor of Keep, but as of writing this comment, the article has zero sources. Perhaps it might be a good idea to Draftify so an editor can complete the article. Madeleine (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of it can be sourced to his 2022 curriculum vitae. It's obviously not independent, so usable only for uncontrove×rsial education and career details, not evaluation and opinion, but I think that's all we really need. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if he passes PROF, we need more sources than just one, which would violate our rules against WP:OR and WP:BLP. We also recently deleted the article of a notable dancer who was featured in a documentary about Madonna, because it was substantially an autobiography. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bearian please have a look at WP:NPROF first before you cast your vote. An academic is not a dancer, we have very clear guidelines in WP:NPROF which are sufficient for notability. Other guidelines that you cite do not apply here. We do have multiple sources to establish notability per WP:NPROF#1, namely Google Scholar and Scopus. --hroest 03:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and have discussed PROF in hundreds of AfDs. When I see at least one more reliable, independent, secondary source about him in the article, then I'll change my !vote. You do your thing. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster's Christmas

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

Unnotable. Only has 3 sources. ShamrockFrog64 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Television, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Willis, Donald C. (1997). Horror and Science Fiction Films IV. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. pp. 331–332. ISBN 0-8108-3055-8. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The Monster's Christmas (N.Z.) Showtime-TV/Dave Gibson & Nat'l. Film Unit & TV New Zealand 1981 color 48m. D: Yvonne Mackay. SP: Burton Silver. Ph: Peter James. Mus: Dave Fraser. AD: Gaylene Preston. SpFX: Tony Rabbit. SpDes: Janet Williamson. Mkp: Patricia Cohen. Ref: TV. TVG: listed as movie. no Scheuer. no Maltin '92. With Lucy McGrath, Leone Hatherly (witch), Paul Farrell (mountain monster), Michael Wilson (bat-mole creature, Nasty); Ingrid Prossor, Roger Page (mud monster); Bernard Kearns, Jeremy Stevens (monster voices). Nonsense-for-children is a tad slow, but generally agreeable "Sesame Street" stuff. One monster looks like an artichoke, or leftovers from Battle beyond the Sun. All monsters here like to eat pictures and drawings of flowers, and all express themselves in funny growls and grunts. (The witch took away their voices.) McGrath as the little girl has an effortlessly expressive face and voice and seems right at home with the weird creatures. At one point, she disguises herself as a monster and is given lessons in ferociousness."
2. "N.Z. film wins award at U.S. festival". The Press. 1981-11-23. p. 13. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via National Library of New Zealand.
  The article notes: "The Monster’s Christmas," a one-hour children’s film, has won a bronze medal at the New York film and television festival for its Wellington maker, Gibson Film Productions. The star of the film is a Wellington girl, Lucy McGrath, aged nine. “The Monster’s Christmas" is her second film. ... Gibson Films looked to local schools before they made “Barney Blackfoot” and remembered Lucy McGrath when it decided to make “The Monster’s Christmas.” She still had to audition with 150 others. ... New Zealanders will be able to see the film on television on Christmas Day. They will see Lucy journeying towards the caves, where the wicked witch, Festindook lives, to help the film's monsters regain their stolen voices."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Cowie, Peter, ed. (1981). International Film Guide, 1982. London: The Tantivy Press. p. 229. ISBN 0498-02568-3. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Director Yvonne Mackay, working with her producer-husband David Gibson, made the bizarrely-entertaining Monster's Christmas, a fable in which a small girl makes friends with three creatures whose voices have been stolen by a witch."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Monster's Christmas to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's also a review by Outlaw Vern: [54]. A critic who has written for Ain't It Cool News, CLiNT, and Seattle Weekly. --Mika1h (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion by Cunard and Mika1h that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahau (software)

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

Contested PROD. Not seeing any additional independent sources outside the two currently in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spinoff source checks all the boxes, but I don't think a 12-min podcast interview w/ founder satisfies GNG. I found a mention in a master's thesis, a mention in short article about hackathon, and a little writeup in an academic report of some kind, but the writeup is only sourced to the company website. I will say that searching for sources was quite difficult given Ahau seems to mean I/me in the Maori language - many unrelated hits to wade through - it's possible I missed something. If more sigcov in RS can't be located I think a great alternative would be to start an article about Indigenous data sovereignty w/ a section on Maori, as the overarching topic seems notable (lots of scholarship and reporting), I'm just not convinced this specific startup is. Zzz plant (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think the sources, especially the lengthy Spinoff article almost qualify the article for inclusion and "I want to believe" (WP:ILIKEIT). Nevertheless, I must respect our notability guidelines and I spent 15 minutes looking. Ping me if someone turns something up. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, requires more notability to justify inclusion. Every piece of software does not warrant its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article. First, a couple of clarifications. The "podcast" linked as a source was originally broadcast on RNZ, the NZ public radio broadcaster (akin to BBC in the UK or NPR in the US), which is why it's on their website. This is not a business article about a "startup", it's a tech article about a pioneering open source project, created by and for indigenous people. I invite those proposing deletion to stop and consider the speedy deletion of "DEI" content on US public services websites, and check that implicit bias is playing no part is dismissing this topic as unworthy of a WP article. It's hard to find sources that meet WP standards because of precisely that bias, as well as international media bias against relatively small countries and population. Surely a mention in an academic thesis, combined with the Spinoff and RNZ links, make it worth leaving the article in place for now, with a "needs more sources" flag? DanylStrype — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no purpose to a 'need more sources tag' if more sources don't exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A RNZ podcast should probably count as a source with editorial oversight, just as blogs maintained by news media are normally exempt from our “no blogs” rule. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree that the RNZ is a RS, and for what it's worth they do seem to describe it themselves as a podcast - although my understanding is that interviews (regardless of outlet) don't usually count towards GNG. Zzz plant (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hieronymus Bosch (band)

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

One source is confirmed unreliable (see RSDISCOGS) and the other does have a bio and links to articles which mention the band in passing, but it's really not much and doesn't seem like enough. Couldn't find any other coverage of the band. No apparent redirect targets. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my search turned up more information on a Russian band of the same name than this one. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find anything other than this profile on music.nz, which might be a reliable source, but doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV. Rift (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the same page already linked in the article which I mentioned in my nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sure is. Rift (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's rather difficult to perform a 100% thorough search because of this guy. I checked EBCSCO and archive.org. Found nothing. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Hamilton Rowing Club

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schwede. I was able to find decent coverage through that cite, coverage of meetings, and what seems like season overviews. What I looked for only scratched the surface, so im certain there is more. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Schwede66 Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories / Templates / etc.

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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

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