This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many
deletion lists coordinated by
WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Australia.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's
deletion policy and
WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to
Oceania.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Rugby BLP that fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTCRIT as far as I can tell. The closest thing to
WP:SIGCOV that I found was
this transactional announcement.
JTtheOG (
talk) 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Career never really kicked on to bring extended coverage, so not really enough to pass
WP:GNG here. No suitable redirect per
WP:ATD.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 18:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian
rugby league player, to meet
WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing.
JTtheOG (
talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: World Cup quarter finalist, several references (though more needed), suggesting player has had/having a career in Australia's first and second tier. Article needs expansion.
Mn1548 (
talk) 16:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Played at the RLWC, nine sources, every line sourced.
Fleets (
talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian
rugby league player, to meet
WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing.
JTtheOG (
talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Though he his semi pro with international caps, references given don't appear to suggest his career is notable, thus finding refs is unlikely.
Mn1548 (
talk) 16:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails the
notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. –
Teratix₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for
Fortune,
NPR, Tearsheet) which meets
WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing.
PigeonChickenFish (
talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The citations you have added are a classic example of a
notability bomb – inserting a lot of insignificant references to create a superficial appearance of notability. For the benefit of other editors I will address each of them, but in future AfD discussions, instead of adding a dozen insignificant references and expecting other editors to pick through them, try to
focus on a few excellent sources.
Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find
Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me
to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. –
Teratix₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say.
PigeonChickenFish (
talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.
On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? –
Teratix₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Here is the
Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation.
S0091 (
talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I have performed some searches earlier with the same result. It is very strange that one of the few remaining golf magazines in a large country does not appear to generate much in terms of independent sources describing it (I even checked press in the National Library). --
Викидим (
talk) 00:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability. Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability.
LibStar (
talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations, albeit in a high cited field.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC).reply
Keep Concur that it passes WP:Prof#C1, and Astbury was quite prolific in the 1980's and 1990's so online sources may be hard to come by. Perhaps seeking offline sources to better establish notability might be an option? While I agree being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't "add to" notability, there is a reason why she is there, and that is for the significant contribution that she has made in her chosen field. I'd also like to add that it is disheartening to see articles of notable women being nominated for deletion, particularly when Wikipedia continues to battle the issue of gender bias when it comes to biographical articles about women
2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (
talk) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)—
2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I think that being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women does add to notability but, by itself, does not establish it.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC).reply
Delete: Most sources are databases or primary sources. Unless more references can be found current coverage isn't sufficient.
Mn1548 (
talk) 13:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Article has several secondary sources, and by the looks of what is written, he went on to have a career in Australia's second tier. Don't think failing in the NRL is sounds to be classEd as not notable. Article could probably be expanded.
Mn1548 (
talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer
Ed Cowan so
WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy
WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then.
MaskedSinger (
talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability, this is just promotional. Fails
WP:GNG among other notability cirteria, and
WP:NOTCV.
LizardJr8 (
talk) 23:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: PROMO with no sources outside of PR items or lists. Even my searches only turn up PR items.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Unreferenced article with an IMDb external link. Pre-wiki coverage was hard to find, even a cursory Google search today shows nothing. Although the actor seems to have played several minor roles in notable shows, there's no significant coverage of him that I could find. If printed sources exist, one may list them.
X (
talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Australian
rugby league player, to meet
WP:GNG or
WP:SPORTCRIT. All I really found were transactional announcements (
2015,
2017).
JTtheOG (
talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Undecided: Can't imagine a player with 93 appearances for one club and had apparently played for others has so little written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage.
Mn1548 (
talk) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:SPORTBASIC. Unable to find anything other than routine coverage.
J Mo 101 (
talk) 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{
source assess table}}.
Question Hey,
GMH Melbourne, I'm not as familiar with AUS sources as you probably are, but to me those don't all look like simple straight interviews. Many sources will speak to a representative when covering any sort of business, and quoting those representatives doesn't turn a story into an interview. I feel like multiple of them are actually talking about the business in their own voices more than they're quoting the representatives. Can you elaborate on why you feel each of these doesn't represent independent coverage? Are these sources known for sponsored content?
For me the Vice piece probably fails to support notability of the restaurant more because its four long paragraphs before the interview portion are about the proprietor rather than about the restaurant. I would actually tend to accept that source as support for notability for the proprietor.
Valereee (
talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
According to the table, the other sources are not just interviews, but also promo pieces or very promotional. A promo piece definitely would not count as a RS. Industrial Insect(talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Valereee: I understand what you mean. If we take what you have said into account, I'd say that The Age article could count towards GNG. Broadsheet is a food/travel magazine it would be hard to say whether or not they are totally independent of the subject. The Herald Sun article is a total promo piece with a burger created exclusively for heraldsun.com.au which leads me to doubt the independence of the broadsheet articles. -
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Meh...I don't see promotionalism of the restaurant in that piece. That's more the herald promoting itself, which all newspapers do to some extent -- a story 'exclusive to the NYT' is not the NYT promoting the subject of their story but the NYT promoting themselves. So a burger created exclusively for the herald is really just the herald saying, "Aren't you glad you're reading the herald, because otherwise you wouldn't get this recipe!" But that said, again the piece is primarily about Rashid and Chang, not about Beatbox. So again I'd say not sigcov of this article subject.
The Broadsheet articles are about the restaurant. I generally like to see different sources, but these are at least written by different people at the Broadsheet. But that's still local coverage. The Age is probably not significant coverage, it's a bare mention of BeatBox in a story about food trucks during COVID. And the Vice is not about the restaurant.
I think on balance I'm landing on Delete.
Valereee (
talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While current sentiment is leaning towards delete, giving this another seven days to assess if further input continues to lean that way. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I found this Vice article which is no doubt independent, sigcov, and has depth:
This, combined with the dubious but in my opinion passable Broadsheet coverage meets
WP:THREE and
WP:GNG. BrigadierG (
talk) 01:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't say the vice article is total independent, the vast majority of it is an interview with the owner, and even then I would say that it is based more on the owner rather than Beatbox Kitchen itself.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 09:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That Vice piece is already in the article, and as GMH says, it's not about the subject. It's about the owner.
Valereee (
talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete but consider a new BLP article on Raph Rashid, for which the Vice article would be one principle source (two more would be necessary). The Vice article is in the source assessment table, which makes the point that the article is about Rashid and not about Beatbox Kitchen. We don't seem to have a BLP article on Raph Rashid, but that might be what is notable, not the burger truck. The article on the closing down must be approached with more caution. It is a discursive primary source inasmuch as it is reporting the closure. Discursive because it provides some background. The background is relevant, the occasion for the source is not, being primary. See
WP:SIRS. Nothing here meets
WP:CORPDEPTH and this fails
WP:NCORP, but again, we have one good source for a BLP. If the BLP existed, redirect would be reasonable.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes
WP:GNG/
WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong!
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, please let me know what is missing to make notability.
louibu (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed?
Louibu (
talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes
WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute significant critical attention, nor is the subject's work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction.
StarMississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added.
Carolinephillips (
talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence?
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{
source assess table}}.
Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that
WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This event does not meet
WP:NEVENTS. This is only a minor flood with minor damage and no injuries. This will not have a
lasting effect.
Steelkamp (
talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Per
WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Not a particularly notable natural disaster.
AusLondonder (
talk) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, as with many unfortunate incidents or minor disasters, relevance is typically limited to the affected region/country. Without
WP:SUSTAINED coverage, ideally internationally, there is no demonstrating it has a
WP:LASTING effect and therefore, cannot be adjusted to be notable. I wouldn't object a condensed version being merged into
Clarkson, Western Australia. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 10:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I object as well to merging with Clarkson, Western Australia. The floods covered more than just Clarkson. The article claims that Clarkson, Butler, Joondalup, Currambine, Ridgewood and Mindarie were all flooded or at least received warnings. I still think a straight up delete would be the best course of action.
Steelkamp (
talk) 10:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree, I also oppose merge.
LibStar (
talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I was more thinking that I would not have any particular concerns if it were mentioned it in an article relevant to the region, rather than a full-on entire merge (hence "condensed version"). I am not familiar with the geography of the region, but appreciate that if it affected multiple places, then mentioning in only one article would not always be appropriate (although the title of the article itself mentions Clarkson, so this seemed to be the worst affected I would imagine).
Fundamentally, my preference is in agreement to delete, which I !voted for. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Floods in Australia - I agree that its not notable on its own, and that it shouldn't be redirected/merged with the Clarkson article, but there is another reasonable redirect target --
DannyS712 (
talk) 07:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not even mentioned on that list, and why should it be? It's not a very significant flood. –
Teratix₵ 07:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, 11 days after the flood and no one is talking about it anymore. It has been out of the news since 1 day after the flood. This flood simply is not very signficant.
Steelkamp (
talk) 07:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
BLP of a perennial candidate with no notability outside of her repeated unsuccessful candidacies. The sources presented do not demonstrate in-depth coverage of her as a person, focusing on her various campaigns and a dispute with her party. After politics she appears to be a low-profile individual and this BLP amounts to a
Pseudo-biography - "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? In the second case, it is likely that the event or organization is notable, but that the individual is not."
AusLondonder (
talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates, they have to be notable for activities/achievements outside running in elections.
LibStar (
talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose for several reasons. She didn’t meet SIGCOV in the past, but does now in my judgement. There are a number of articles specifically discussing her- including several not yet featured on the article. See here:
Since the last deletion, she has also been the subject of a 2019 documentary, since shown at a number of film festivals. Just one example:
https://cdocff.com.au/the-candidate/
I think the previous deletion was 100% correct- but in my opinion, this new content brings her up to notability.
GraziePrego (
talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Adding more to my vote
I understand the deletion arguments if all the coverage about her was solely about the 2018 by-election, but that isn't the case. The SBS articles (two from 2016, one from 2017) are about her at a previous federal election, and they do indeed provide "in-depth coverage of her as a person", describing her religion and the history of her father and grandfather. All of these articles are coverage from before the 2018 by-election. She's not just notable for a single event, she has notability through coverage over years.
Also, I would love clarification as to why
Amelia Hamer is notable enough to keep, but this article isn't- Hamer is a candidate at an election that hasn't even been called yet. Bhathal has significantly more coverage. Both are notable enough to keep.
While
other stuff exists is not the best argument to make at AfD, I have nominated Amelia Hamer for deletion as she is not notable.
AusLondonder (
talk) 19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
2018 Batman by-election - the articles that GraziePrego posted were published in 2016 and 2017, nearly in the height of her political activity. Most coverage I can find is concerning controversies of the by-election, which is also the focus of the documentary. I didn't find any coverage of her after she quit her party in 2019 at all, other than on her own website. This is effectively a
WP:BLP1E, and I don't think there's any more to write about here than what is already covered in the by-election article.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Desertarun (
talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think it's been made evident that this article passes the
WP:GNG. I don't agree that this article is a
WP:BLP1E; she has been separately notable in the sources based on her previous candidacies; her final candidacy for the Greens; the allegations made surrounding her candidacy and the review that was undertaken by the Greens; her not seeking re-election; her leaving the Greens; and the documentary. To me, the coverage is about separate things. Although it could definitely be argued that coverage of the documentary is about the documentary and not her, given the documentary is not necessarily notable, it makes sense for it to be included in this article. Separately from the GNG, this individual was at the centre of a national media story with persistent coverage for multiple years. She does not have to continue making the news in perpetuity to be considered notable.
J2m5 (
talk) 10:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Subject comfortably meets
WP:GNG. The argument stated above that "we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates" is unsupported by Wikipedia's
policies or
guidelines. We accept articles as worthy of inclusion on the basis of their subject's
notability. A political candidate could be chronically failing to get elected but be notable all the same, e.g.
Ralph Nader who has never been elected U.S. president. Extensive and repeated reports and articles in major Australian media
testify to subject's notability.
She's been in the news for more than a decade. -
The Gnome (
talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This person has run for Australian parliament which doesn't have the same international standing as running for US president. In any case
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
LibStar (
talk) 03:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian
rugby union player, to meet
WP:GNG or
WP:SPORTCRIT. Given his age and ongoing career, draftification seems to be a good ATD.
JTtheOG (
talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Think there's enough in the article, plus a search for a weak keep here. Draftification is a suitable
WP:ATD if deemed not also .
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Rugby League footballer who played for Lebanon at the Rugby League World. 8 sources.
Fleets (
talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The quality of the sources has to be addressed.
Geschichte (
talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirecting to
2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads is an
WP:ATD. On that page, one will find his club and cap count at the time (I don't know why rugby doesn't put DoB as well, like football squads). @
JTtheOG, note that several other of the Lebanese 2021 World Cup pages are of the exact same build as
Josh Maree.
Geschichte (
talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Played in a team that got to a WC QF, nothing is written about his club career, needs expansion.
Mn1548 (
talk) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per above. No evidence of the requisite GNG coverage, merely playing in some league does not meet any notability criterion.
JoelleJay (
talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined speedy under G4 again, requiring a third AfD nomination. The second AfD fell foul of this and FWIW it was deleted anyway. And nothing has changed. This fails WP:GNG. The coverage remains trivial and doesn't establish notability. It relies too heavily on Cage Match results which - while reliable - do not establish notability. More sources are needed as before and it appears they don't exist even after I tagged this article in early 2022. As this is the third (possible) deletion I would recommend salting if it does go the same way although sending it into draft mode I would agree to.
Addicted4517 (
talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Sydney Morning Herald is fine, but I don't see any other sourcing. What's used in the article is match results and I can't find anything that's in a RS.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Even that source was a decade ago, if they're been no media coverage in the years since, I don't think we have notability either.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Included in the article are a number of recent sources, one being Sports Illustrated, discussing her move from Australia to the United States in March 2023. There are also a number of recently articles such as Hercanberra, Fightful and the now added Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Slam! Wrestling and Sirensports which focus on her specifically.
Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by
Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper.
CeltBrowne (
talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Analysing sources:Source one
[1] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second
[2] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three
[3] is still unreliable. Source 4
[4] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five
[5] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six
[6] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that.
[18] is statistics of
Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
I've now added an hour long interview from Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice.
CeltBrowne (
talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You are failing to acknowledge the fact the
WP:GNG usurps
WP:RS when the mentions are trivial or otherwise against the rules - as the Canberra and Sydney Morning Herald links are per
prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed.
Addicted4517 (
talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls. — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep She has few appearances on NXT,
[19][20] Impact/TNA,
[21] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),
[22] and ROH.
[23] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,
[24] her championships and titles,
[25] and PWI rankings.
[26] --
Mann Mann (
talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Mann Mann, that doesn't cover appearing in SIGCOV.
WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling! — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.
As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.
Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list.
CeltBrowne (
talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide
significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable. Your comment is laced with
original research and again presumes that
WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this?
Addicted4517 (
talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of
Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.
Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in
WP:SIGCOV (The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).
Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable
The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear
[27] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in
WP:SIGCOV. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.
This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this
[28] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards
WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam!
[29], Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.
Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes
Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.
I indented your comment properly. Please indent this way in the future as it avoids confusion. Aside from that everything that you said there again seeks to push a reliable source above the GNG and SIGCOV tests. Short - by definition - is trivial. The comparison between a list of wrestlers and a list of songs is completely irrelevant. Dedicated coverage does not equal significant coverage, because dedicated and still be shirt and therefore trivial. The Sempervive interview is on You Tube and I will remove that. You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever. The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of
WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). Bottom line - a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability. It may add to it but it can not be relied upon.
Addicted4517 (
talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever.
Please show me a guideline which states this.WP:Youtube and
Wikipedia:Video links make clear that Youtube as a platform is not a problem in-of-itself; Youtube videos may be cited as long as they're from a verifiable, reliable, secondary source.
Inauguration of Donald Trump, for example, cites several youtube videos attributed to reliable secondary sources such as
PBS and
CNN.
Belle Delphine, a good-rated BLP article, has an entire subsection in its references dedicated to youtube citations.
The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). .
It's not SelfPub. Selfpub is when John Smith writes something for JohnSmith.blog, a website Smith control and runs themself. Slam! Wrestling is an Independent reliable secondary source per
Wikipedia:PW/RS which McKenzie was asked to write a guest feature for. It's a primary source which can be used to make
WP:ABOUTSELF statements, which is what it was used for.
a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability
No one is arguing it is on it's own. It's to be taken together with all the other sources being provided, obviously.
CeltBrowne (
talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The correct citation criteria I am applying (to answer your struck out request) is
WP:NPA via
WP:BLP. It openly discourages Youtube videos in combination with
WP:YOUTUBE unless certain criteria is fulfilled. The citation you gave doesn't do it. The comparison to the Trump inauguration is irrelevant because that isn't a BLP. Anyway - you have the other source so there's no need for this second one anyway. The article on Slam is selfpub because the subject wrote it. That's the only criteria required to breach that guideline. The platform is not relevant. And finally you are arguing the list to prove notability - because you pressed substantive coverage in it.
This has been done to death now and I suggest we wait for others to come in, now that it has been relisted again - and either agree with me or agree with you.
Addicted4517 (
talk) 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I will take discussion of this specific citation-issue to
Talk:Shazza McKenzie because it's detracting from the purpose of this thread. But it is in fact important whether or not it is included in the article because it's an example of significant coverage, which is obvious important to a deletion discussion thread.
CeltBrowne (
talk) 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I'm new here and this should be deleted because it's an ad! What she's done etc etc. Is this allowed? If it is I'm sorry - I didn't know Wikipedia allowed ads. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
1.145.225.106 (
talk) 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You're new and you should use four tildes to sign your posts. No -
WP:PROMO prohibits advertising. It's an interesting observation the lack of content on her career aside from match result does in fact appear promotional. but I'll be neutral on this pending other input. Also I assume this is a Delete vote.
Addicted4517 (
talk) 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I never heard of a tilde. Had to look it up and I can't find it on my keyboard. Yes this is a delete vote and thanks for helping. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
1.145.225.106 (
talk) 23:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The tilde is in the capitalised position to the left of the 1 key. I've added Delete to your first comment in this edit to help you.
Addicted4517 (
talk) 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian
cricketer player, to meet
WP:GNG. The closest to
WP:SIGCOV that I found were
1 and
2, both from the same publication.
JTtheOG (
talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future. Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at
List of South Australian representative cricketers also, so two suitable
WP:ATDs.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I think
1 and
2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article. These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing. In terms of SNGs, it meets
WP:NCRIC as well.
RoboCric Let's chat 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources. Those contain useful information, so I linked those. However, apart from these two, I guess
this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance. I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep. Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect. Thanks.
RoboCric Let's chat 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify, not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future. Redirect.
JoelleJay (
talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one.
AA (
talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers. Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there. If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: To better summarize the sources in question, there are a couple sentences of coverage
here, though it's mostly quotes, and four-ish sentences of coverage
here. Both are from The Advertiser so they should be counted as one source.
JTtheOG (
talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Mayors are not automatically notable under
WP:NPOL. I could not find sufficient sources with
significant coverage to demonstrate that this article meets the
GNG. In the article, only the Brisbane Times may count – the rest are electoral results and a government (CCC) report that doesn't mention the subject. As part of
WP:BEFORE, I found two articles
[30][31], neither of which constitutes SIGCOV of the subject.
Toadspike (
talk) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Appears to pass
WP:SIGCOV based on the cited sources. I'd need to see a more convincing source analysis by the nominator to be convinced otherwise.
4meter4 (
talk) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reviewing this nomination after some time, I would like to thank Totallynotarandomalt69 for adding further good sources that provide significant coverage. This article now comes close to proving notability. However, per
WP:GNG, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Recounting the sources, only ABC News and The Courier Mail clearly meet the GNG. I do not believe that the Brisbane Times article provides significant coverage (four sentences are about the subject herself, most of which is simply summarizing electoral results), and the government sources are not SIGCOV. Thus, I still believe the article should be deleted/redirected and will not withdraw my nomination, though I understand if editors disagree.
Toadspike (
talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Ipswich is not a large enough place to assume its mayors are notable, and I'm only seeing local coverage.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete What we like in articles about a local officeholder is information that illustrates the impact of their tenure in office. What projects did they champion, what is their legacy. Size of city is not an important factor. Like the nominator, I do not see that significant sources exists. --
Enos733 (
talk) 03:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources are pretty good and she's notable in her own right, 230k people definitely isn't an insignificant number.
AmNowEurovision (
talk) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete there is precedence for mayors not holding enough political signifance in a 3 tier system of government, see
https://w.wiki/9gw7Teraplane (
talk) 23:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply