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:
I don't believe this meets WP:ORG. Google news comes up with routine news like a robbery occurring but nothing indepth. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nomination. Closest I could find to WP:SIGCOV was this however it appears to be paid marketing. Everything else that came up for me had to do with incidents or events which were at the shopping centre, however the articles themselves appear not to be about the shopping centre. This doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. TarnishedPathtalk 02:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible this does pass our notability guidelines. This local government business news I'm not sure would count, but it does show the centre was notable enough when it opened to receive press which would count towards WP:GNG. A historical source search will be needed. SportingFlyerT·C 04:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited don't seem very reliable. The article makes an extraordinary claim ("tallest temple dedicated to Rama ever built in the world"), which should result in more local coverage, but there is no coverage in local media such as The West Australian or ABC News. Steelkamp (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoristalk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoristalk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though a merge may be the outcome of an AFD debate, there are other venues for proposing mergers. Geschichte (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, this is my first time proposing something for merging. I'll have a thorough look for information on merging articles. Thanks for pointing this out. Adam Blacktalk • contributions 17:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Goldfields-Esperance newspapers per nom and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The amount of information available on the topic suggests it would be better handled by using the larger geographic scope. Sdkbtalk 17:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. I have not found significant coverage of this topic. Also fails WP:NOTDB; including all of the results for all of the mayoral elections would make this page massive. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third entry in WP:CSC provides a good metric for when a list gets into WP:NOTDB territory. That guideline states that "[s]hort, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" may be appropriate. However, such lists "should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)". The list is already 12k of wikitext from 2 entries; 50 entries would far exceed that limit. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Auspol wiki has been notoriously poor at recording local elections despite a wealth of information about them being available, and recording all results would see the page be as large if not smaller than most other auspol results pages. NSW is also the largest state and its mayors are generally very notable & attract a lot of media attention. Goodebening (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 New South Wales local elections as these were also part of the local elections that year (and also worth noting the size of the article could be much reduced if {{Election results}} was used instead of the election box templates). Number57 16:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The page clearly states how the mayoral elections are part of the local elections, they are notable enough to split the page for results It would be messier to embed these results in the "List of mayors of [LGA]" if they weren't on this page AmNowEurovision (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of his rugby union career seems to be limited, and I can't see anything obvious on his rugby league career. I can't see a suitable redirect per WP:ATD either. I'm at delete now, but if our rugby league editors find some sourcing I'll reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the grounds that his career seems to be more that is written, but more sourcing and prose need to retain the article. Mn1548 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Basically just a list of songs performed. This should be a paragraph in Delta Goodrem at most. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delta Goodrem. Not worthy of a standalone article while sources (links to her songs) are all primary. 💥Casualty• Hop along. • 07:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delta Goodrem, if only because a fan may search for the term. Otherwise, the article is fan trivia that merely lists a series of web performances with an attempt to add a few sources on how all of Australian music was suffering during the pandemic. The series itself does not satisfy requirements at WP: NTOUR (as a series of "concerts") or the more general WP:NMUSIC. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, barely any reliable sources online. Sources used in the article may not be reliable, especially excessive use of Discogs. ToadetteEdit! 08:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This was very recently moved from draft. Obviously this was premature. UtherSRG(talk) 13:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be moved back to draft, it definitely is lacking sources right now and is very biased Kawaiidumbassery (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "excessive use of Discogs" is on the discography section only, alongside musicbrainz.
It does not fail WP:GNG, but may or may not require certain new sources depending on WP:NMUSIC.
Some content may have to be revised and/or cut for the unbiased standard. However it is clear it has sufficient, reliable sources that cover the subject on its varying sections. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the movement from draftspace to articlespace, as said above it is clear it has sufficient, reliable sources that cover the subject on its varying sections. Registered and Autoconfirmed users do not have to go through AfC to create an article, so it was moved. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With my updates I think it meets more requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music), they have released on two important indie labels which I have updated it to reflect. I think moving it back to draft would be the best choice, it seems to have been published prematurely. Kawaiidumbassery (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that the consensus so far is to move it back to the draftspace. I am still concerned, there are other articles released with less sources then provided on the article for Sewerslvt. I can also account for the problems on the article, including the reliance on much of one source. There has also been a commons deletion on a primary image used on the article. The article shouldn't be deleted, neither kept on the articlespace. I am still curious though, what defines an article as premature? NikolaiVektovich (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98(Talk) 02:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted in November 2023. My rationale last time was "There have been no reforms to local government since then which might merit mentioning in this article. It is far too early for people to announce their candidacies." This is still the case. This article was created far too soon. Steelkamp (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - it was mentioned last deletion discussion that there was no confirmed date, that has now been fixed and reliable sources added
I see no good reason why an upcoming election should not have a page once the previous election (in this case 2023) is finished
Federal elections and state elections are vastly more important than local government elections. Besides, federal elections and state elections usually have something tangible to write about soon after the previous election. That is not the case with this article, where its basically saying what the date is, and repeating a bunch of stuff from the 2023 local government election article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But at what point would you want the page created? As I said we are only about a year-and-a-half out, we know the date and coverage will eventually pop up as well
This page existing as it is with a bit of background info harms no-one Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When coverage eventually pops up. Steelkamp (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: this isn't ready for mainspace. All sources in the article bar one are primary sources and the one source that isn't primary (The Mandarin) doesn't mention when the election is and is about changes being made ahead of elections which occurred in October 2023. None of the other material is covered in an article which I would expect of the name "2025 Western Australian local elections". In short this is lacking in coverage in secondary sources. However this will happen in over a year, so best to push to draft for the time being where it can be worked on until it is ready for mainspace. TarnishedPathtalk 10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Election is less than two years away and as arandomalt mentioned, coverage will come soon AmNowEurovision (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is standard practice for the next election to have a page created after the prior one is completed, even if there haven't been many significant developments. Additional coverage will follow soon enough. Goodebening (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that these articles (including the 2023 article) meet the WP:GNG. Local council elections in WA remain largely discrete events and there is very little coverage of them as a "set of elections" – which is to be expected when councils are almost uniformly nonpartisan and the majority of them have residents numbering in the hundreds. Only a handful of candidates would be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. The article on the 2023 elections relies on primary sources for election results and then a scattering of "controversy" articles on individual candidates; I can't see the 2025 article progressing beyond this because there just isn't the coverage to expand it. ITBF (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local elections, including Western Australian local elections, are notable enough for a statewide page and given the close proximity of the 2025 elections this page should stay Nottashaa432 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk·contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not running for one and losing — but this makes no claim that he had preexisting notability for any other reason independent of unsuccessful candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some news coverage cited on this page, but I don't see enough to consider him notable. And, as Bearcat pointed out, his unsuccessful candidacies do nothing to establish notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. No real substantial coverage besides running for elections. LibStar (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source in article and BEFORE are database records, game recaps, routine local mill news, and name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if indepth sources addressing the subject directly meeting WP:SIRS are found. // Timothy :: talk 17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, here is a link to the official history book of the Australian Rules football club, Trentham Football / Netball Club in Victoria, Australia - https://trenthamsaintsfnc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/TDFNC-The-First-100-Years-by-Vin-Cowell.pdf which should provide you with a good source for you add in any other citations for verification, addressing your concerns. Thanks, Justin. Justin J. Kelly (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are mainly local, same with a google news search, needs wider coverage as per WP:AUD. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: What's wrong with the book-length source on its history listed above? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think this person is notable enough. It has zero sources, and that it hasn't been really expanded that much. JuniperChill (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. JuniperChill (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nom is based purely on the current stage of the article and not on the notability of the subject. If a basic BEFORE had been done the Sydney Morning Herald linked in the Tuvalu (novel) page would have been seen demonstrating that the subject does not have zero sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: that is still only one source that goes towards establishing notability. A Google search I did found a bunch of references to 'Andrew O'Connor' but I suspect that none of them are this Andrew O'Connor. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did say about the notability in the first sentence. Maybe I forgot to say that my Google search mostly returns the actor. Also, Google seems to no longer return the number of results I have been getting (in the form of about 1,000,000 results (0.10 seconds)). We have many pages without sources but I think due to the new rules, any articles created today without sources will almost certainly result in an AFD, merge, redirect or drafts. JuniperChill (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are only finding hits for others then refine your search. This man wrote a book called Tuvalu so search for "Andrew O'Connor" Tuvalu and you may get better results, such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Simple really. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single EL source in article does not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, nothing found in BEFORE that has SIGCOV from independent sources. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does not meet SIGCOV and would fail WP:IS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Austlit lists 17 works about his works. Below are from some of the better known publications listed. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does meet SIGCOV and would pass WP:IS.duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pierce, Peter (23 September 2006), "Gaining in translation", The Age
Full length review of Tuvalu. (Peter Pierce is professor of Australian literature at James Cook University.)
Stubbings, Diane (19 August 2006), "All-absorbing look at search for an elusive dream", The Canberra Times
Full length review of Tuvalu.
Ley, James (19 August 2006), "The island in the mind", The Sydney Morning Herald
Full length review of Tuvalu.
Tucker, Genevieve (6 September 2006), "Fraught between two worlds", The Australian
Full length review of Tuvalu.
The Sydney Morning Herald
Article about O'Connor.
Keep: this is a classic case of an editor equating a lack of references with notability. It has needed, and has now received, an edit that includes a number of references. The author's novel, Tuvalu, is an Australian prize-winner, which makes it notable. To delete the page of the author of that novel would diminish the encyclopedia. The page still needs more work rather than a deletion. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the book awards and these critical reviews of Tuvalu [7], [8], passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And this discussion [9] of his work. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources, I couldn't find anything that is both reliable and provides WP:SIGCOV. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for flagging. Have improved the article with additional authoritative news sources. We are talking here about one of the very best saxophone players of his generation. In the Brit Awards 2024 (the leading awards in UK for music), RAYE won more awards than any other artist, so for Blevins to have a track named after him on her album is notable. He has been regularly in the bands of several household name stars and played in a Grammy award winning album. Wikiwikiwwwest (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still try to include more sources that contribute to the WP:GNG criteria. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per adequate refs by now JarrahTree 01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? I wasn't able to locate any. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage in the article is now about the Raye group, which isn't helping this person's individual notability... Listed here [10], but it's always in a long list of other people. Playing on an album with a group of others doesn't meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Noting the company’s website is a primary source and not independent. Previous PROD removed by anon IP, possible WP:SOCKPUPPET, without addressing the issue of notability. The article’s creator is currently blocked for disrupting other articles. Anon IP is potentially working around current block. Dan arndt (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the issues raised in the nom are not themselves justification for deleting the article. The current sourcing is poor but I have been able to find quite a bit of decent coverage such as this from the Financial Review, Mosman Living, Hospitality magazine, and the Sydney Morning Herald. This was from a fairly quick search. AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The article needs improving but a Google search found a number of sources that can contribute towards establishing notability under WP:NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conducted a BEFORE and found some useful sources. X (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PAG Asia Capital. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as what seems to be the case here where most of the references rely entirely on information from the execs or the company. The references included above are thinly disguised promos or regurgitated company announcements or PR - I mean the articles in hospitality magazine (almost entirely consiste of quotes from company exec) and Goodfood (7 sentences, 2 of which are direct quotes) both use the same (PR supplied) pic even though they're written 3 years apart and neither of them come anywhere close to meeting ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. None of the references come close and I cannot locate anything on this company that meets GNG/NCORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources presented in this AfD would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 11:27, 13 May 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}}.
The subject played for the Italy national rugby league team, but I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. BLPs require strong sourcing and all I really found was four sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: Large scope for expansion, but not enough coverage to warrant keeping article in current state. Mn1548 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.
I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.
@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.
Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.
Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.
So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played
top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc
catches and dismissals
reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country
prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney
explicit knockout stage performances
I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio (U, T, A, C, S) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. Cassiopeiatalk 22:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are primary (assumption college or its founder Marist Brothers). Sources are not from Assumption College or Marist Brothers are the "Notable alumni " section where by - source -1, - source 2 and source-3 only mentioned the alumni members and not mentioned about Assumption college in length or in depth and info are part interview pieces which makes it not independent. source-4 is football club which is not reliable source. source-5 is football organization which is not a reliable source. Section on "Assumption College VCE results 2012-2020" - source -5 is from private company which makes it not reliable. Section on "Sporting achievements" which does not mention Assumption college and the the article is partially interview piece which makes it not independent.
Keep - On the face of it this is a significant sized school and at the older end of all Australian schools. Not the oldest but a venerable institution. It has significant web presence, but like the concerns about sourcing on the page, much of that is not independent. There are three books about the school on the page that are not discussed above. However, one of these is published by the school, and the other two by a Kilmore publisher so independence is questionable. Yet a school that is publishing volumes about its history is still unusual in itself. Add to that very considerable sustained newspaper coverage, including a lot in The Age. The Age is an Australian newspaper of record, and a reliable source. Much of the coverage is primary, but again, 125 years of coverage is certainly not to be sniffed at. Then it gets mentioned in multiple books that are independent. E.g. [11], [12], [13], [14]. Although passing mentions don't help much, there is more significant coverage in some of these, and again, the very fact it gets mentioned so much indicates a level of significance. This looks like a GNG pass to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, This is Wikipedia and an article needs to pass the notability requirements to have a page in Wikipedia and it is NOT about how old and institution it has been operation or the unusual the history of the school. Primary sources can NOT be used to contribute to the notability requirements. Your sources [15], [16] - is a primary source; [17] is about the owners of the school and not about the school and it is just a book cover which does not indicated it cover the school in detail or in length; [18] is about Research Methodology and Research Results in Catholic Schools in Victoria, Australia and not about the school itself and lastly [19] is about Two Centuries of Surgery in Papua New Guinea not about the school itself. As you have mentioned, they are all passing mentioned which do not pass the notability requirements of Wikpedia. Cassiopeiatalk 02:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is in my nature to draw attention to the weaknesses of the sources I present at AfD as part of a rounded argument. My drawing attention to the fact that many sources are primary therefore is a demonstration of familiarity with the guidelines, not unfamiliarity. But I note that your nom. statement only discusses the sources in the article (and misses the three books) and does not take into account the huge number of sources shown up in the linked searches (Google/books/news/scholar) and in newspaper archives. Looking at that, and at the detail here, that this is a very large and very old school, with sustained coverage and an actual history book written about it that has been accessioned by the National Library of Australia [20] - which book is already linked on the page, and which tells us it is noted for academic and sporting prowess and was one of the largest country boarding schools in Australia - I personally would not even have considered nominating this article after a WP:BEFORE. It does need cleanup, but AfD is not for that. Very clearly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your last source is good but not the last 4 including the 3 books where the books are not talking about the subject but part of it, further more, you provide the book name and not the info of the book about the subject. If you can point to the page where we can read the info and verify significant coverage is in place then that is the different story but not because the old established of the subject as the means to pass the notability. To say this, it is unfortunate many colleges/educational institute or in the matter of the fact academics do not have a page in Wikipedia because of only primary sources covered them. Cassiopeiatalk 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So again, I already highlighted the issue with passing mentions in the 4 books I highlighted (but remember that a book or article does not have to be about the subject to count towards notability). The point was not to say that those themselves were the best sources - the point is that on the face of it, there is not a snowball's chance that a school with this level of attention, coverage and mentions will fail to meet GNG. And I didn't just provide the name of that book, I provided its full bibliographic record at the National Library of Australia, which also includes an ISBN number. Not that this is strictly necessary, because that book is already listed on the page. I don't need to provide a page number - the whole book is a history of the school. I don't have it. It was published in 1976, and I do not think there is an electronic copy. Recall that sources do not need to be on the page, nor do they need to be available electronically to count towards notability. They merely must exist, and this book exists). However the information I was able to ascertain about the book can be seen on this ebay listing: [21] Very handy that they show us the synopsis and the contents pages. And it doesn't stop there. I made the case I did to save the necessity to trawl through 2,481 newspaper articles mentioning the school. But if you were to search Newspapers.com in the Wikipedia library, the very first page of hits would show up this thorough article[22] which would count as reliable (the Age is a reliable paper of record) with independent secondary coverage, a full page spread certainly being significant. There are other papers too that discuss the school [23], but more significantly, articles in The Age about their sporting prowess, this being just one example.[24] This school is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do agree the article in its current state is promotional and relies mostly on primary sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. On Talk:Assumption College, Kilmore, I've listed four RS (and two more passing mentions from alums that might help balance the tone of the article). The subject meets WP:GNG, even though the article needs an overhaul. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the article substantially to remove the promotional language and reorganize the "team of the century" table but did not have time to add the potential sources listed on the talk page. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch☎✎ 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a longstanding draft at User:Teratix/Australian rules football analytics which I really, really need to finish and move into mainspace at some point. I did a bit of searching for sources covering AFL Tables as part of my research, and it does get a mention in James Coventry's Footballistics (p. 265):
[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."
(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)
As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a view to creating a redirect to the statistics article once Teratix has moved their draft to mainspace (or it is otherwise created). It is regrettable that such an important RS doesn't meet GNG or WEBCRIT but there is simply no SIGCOV. Aspirex - I think a Template:Anchor would do the trick. And there are ~12,000 transclusions of Template:AFL Tables that could conceivably link there!
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify so that Teratix is able to access the material and merge it into his draft. TarnishedPathtalk 08:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:27, 12 May 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)
I am changing my recommendation to a redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 29 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:28, 2 May 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations
The following Australian-related articles are currently Proposed for Deletion:
Australia-related Miscellany for deletion
The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Templates for Deletion
The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Categories for Discussion
The following Australian-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
