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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Australia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
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:
Excessive detail, list of people who for the most part played only a very minor role in the Rebellion and which doesn't add understanding or necessary background. First entry "Atkins was with the foot police at the Eureka Stockade". Second entry "he was a police orderly at the Eureka Stockade." So what? Fram (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [1][2][3][4] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Sources 4-6 are primary, his "employer". I don't regard having a Order of Australia, or previous position as President of the Assembly, as conferring inherent notability. A search for sources yielded namesakes. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly needs to be cleaned up by someone who knows more about the sources than I do, but it seems to me that that this article should be kept. Bduke (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin was strongly under-defended and hardly prepared, and in just two hours it was basically incapacitated as a forward base for the Allies. The Australians suffered extensive losses in aircraft as well as 236 people killed. Yet, less than a month later, Darwin was operational again and a staging point of retaliatory attacks by the RAAF, although it is still surprising that Darwin was so ill-prepared. As Bob Alford indeed states in his excellent Darwin 1942: The Japanese Attack on Australia, after the great successes of the Japanese, 'It was evident that an attack on Australia was more of whether and not if' (p. 30). Illustrated with many excellent photographs and above all stunning art work, Alford provides a much-welcome study of a little-known campaign, and Osprey is to be applauded for daring to take the risk of initiating a study on such a relatively small-scale battle.
I am nominating the Wikipedia article on RMA Gold Airways for deletion because it violates several key Wikipedia policies, particularly those related to notability, verifiability, and neutrality. RMA Gold Airways never operated any aircraft, had no crew, and failed to launch its proposed services, meaning it did not achieve any significant presence or impact in the aviation industry. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to merit an article, which this airline lacks. The article relies primarily on newspaper sources that provide speculative and critical commentary, with some citations explicitly referring to the airline as "pretend." This raises concerns about verifiability and neutrality, as the article gives undue weight to an entity that never existed in a functional capacity.
Furthermore, retaining this article violates Wikipedia's What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically the sections that prohibit hosting content about subjects that do not meet notability criteria and that function as promotion. The article presents unverified and speculative content, making it more akin to advertising for an unrealised venture rather than an encyclopaedic entry. By not deleting this article, Wikipedia risks breaching its own policies designed to maintain the quality and reliability of its content. Therefore, I recommend that the article be deleted. Ansett (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it does have some issues with notability, it's hardly a promotion. The proposed airline has been out of business for over a decade, and this article pretty much reflects what information already exists outside of Wikipedia, which has been reported in reliable sources. Unexpectedinquisition (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SOCOG was the key organising event behind the Sydney Olympics - it existed for over 7 years, there would be plenty of material on the work that it carried out, though this is probably early internet days so much of it would be hard copy material, particularly in the NSW State or other libraries. It's simply ridiculous to say that it's not notable. At best it should be a redirect to 2000 Summer Olympics. Cavepavonem (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything on Google Scholar or Google Books that wasn't primary or trivial mentions. I checked newspapers.com and there were only trivial mentions and job listings – no in-depth coverage. If someone finds enough secondary coverage to expand the article, I would be happy to change my vote. But we can't just say there is "probably coverage somewhere" if no one is willing to get it. At present, we're probably best off adding a short section to 2000 Summer Olympics with what little information is available. There is currently only one trivial namedrop that isn't even linked in that article. CFA💬14:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or Redirect SOCOG was a very notable organisation in Australia, organising the best ever 2000 Sydney Olympics. Its merchandising designs are kept in the Powerhouse Museum, its archives are in the NSW state archives, there is a comprehensive final report on its activities. It does meet this part of WP:GNG "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." SOCOG had a considerable impact on athletics, culture and entertainment, recalling it ran a parallel arts festival. I can give the links to its archives, its collections kept in museums, its reports, the NSW legislation that set it up. The issue with the SOCOG article seems to be that it has no references, especially no secondary references and so it is a poorly written article. If another editor is able to find secondary references I am sure the article could be improved to show notability. For example there was some controversy around SOCOG and our national broadcaster, the ABC, reported regularly on it, such as a human rights discrimination case, the Minister for the Olympics getting bored at SOCOG meetings. I think that sometimes the nominators for deletion of Australian articles, don't look in the right places for sources. I just searched in the Wikipedia Library and got 3,273 hits in journals about SOCOG.
Delete. Nothing in the article rises to the level of notability. Although we can have articles on people with significant media coverage despite no significant accomplishments, that requires depth of coverage in independent reliable sourcing that we also don't have. Searches didn't find anything better outside the article. Not quite an A7 speedy, but close. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. I wrote the article because my view is that she is notable, in the sense of "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor..." (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)), because she is the international head of Mensa, which is itself a notable organisation. For the record, I am in the process of gathering other references and citations (my plan is to talk with her later this week). If it turns out that the consensus here is that the article should be deleted, I will continue to improve my local copy of the article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben_morphett/Therese_Moodie_Bloom) until it is in a form that is acceptable to the broader Wikipedia community. Ben morphett (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some digging and didn’t find anything particularly notable about this person. She’s mentioned as a regional official of MENSA, but that’s about it—no major media coverage or awards. Being a member of MENSA doesn’t automatically make someone notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and since MENSA is just an organization, not an award, I suggest moving this page out of the mainspace. If the creator thinks there might be some good sources out there, they can work on the draft in their sandbox and submit the improved draft for review later.50.46.167.81 (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- though I disagree with 50.46.167.81 that her notability claim is significantly stronger than just being a member of Mensa, there is not enough evidence that anyone outside of Mensa cares about who their current president is. Not inherited as CFA said, and not satistfying WP:NCORP -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)00:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTRESUME. I was once a member of Mensa and that didn't get me a Wikipedia article. Her position with them is not a notable award and she is only visible in various directories. Her side gig as a puzzle creator has received no reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged for notability for ten years. It looks very doubtful to me - plenty of sources, but about non-notable awards, local coverage, listicle and stuff that doesn’t really look in-depth. The article looks to me like PR based on the success of prior PR. . Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No interlanguage Wikipedia to copy over the article. The keyword "Jan Vydra" on search engines find other men with the same name instead of this person, failing WP:V too. ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆11:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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. I'm unable to identify any references about the company that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 15:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. I can't find a single reliable secondary source on him, and this version of the article (recreated in May 2024) is sourced only by press releases and the author's own works. I could find no independent reviews of any of his books in a WP:BEFORE search, and nothing remarkable about his academic career. His press releases say he was a visiting/emeritus professor at the now-defunct California International Business University in the US (which appears to have a been a visa mill), South-West State University in Russia, and an online outfit called "SABI University" in France which appears to be a degree mill.
Outcome of the last AFD was to draftify per creator's request in April 2019. The draft was abandoned, and deleted in March 2021. Editors searching for significant coverage, please note that there is an unrelated Singaporean film producer with this name, and an unrelated Malaysian athlete. Wikishovel (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find significant secondary coverage, all of the sources are either written by the subject or press releases. hinnk (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to be a prolific writer of self-published books, which could be a claim to notability if we could find enough reliably-published reviews of them. But I didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All books are self-published using Dorrance or Amazon. The articles in The Educator are not enough for author notability. I couldn't find any evidence of his books in library collections. Lamona (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The preceding wording of WP:ANYBIO#3 states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." Its a presumption not a rule. I read the entry and don't see anything notable there. I wonder if it lists all 500+ Australians killed in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes it is a presumption, but the ADB entry provides quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV (note that WP:THREE is a suggestion, and one very high quality source is sufficient). I'd say that is presumption met. Curbon7 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the notion of assessing notability by what participants feel is or is not notable, rather than by the strength of sourcing. There is an debate to be had about whether or not the ADB entry is alone sufficient, but I think the argument I just don't think it's notable is a very poor one. Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Normally I'd support the inclusion of anyone with an entry in a national dictionary of biography, but I'm really struggling to see why he was included. Just a soldier who was killed in action. What distinguishes him from the millions of others? Or even the many thousands of other Australian casualties of war? Is he intended to be representative of the ordinary men who were killed in Vietnam? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see the notability either, appears to be just another soldier doing his job. Not sure why he's listed in the national biography, can you pay to get featured in it? Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage here and here; also found a brief bit from Old Bike Australasia two years ago ("Danny Kennedy, born in Ballarat in 1958, enjoyed seven seasons in UK from 1976 to 1982, the last four years riding for the Poole Pirates, where he was immensely popular. Sadly he died from a brain tumour in 1993."). What makes the book sources in the article primary? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I came along, I found that it had been redirected on notability grounds, while other clubs in its league still had articles. I have no opinion on notability, but I believe it absurd to have articles on some clubs in a league while redirecting others. If this concludes in deletion, others ought to be handled likewise. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a few non-AFL club articles which are pretty rundown and poorly maintained, I've just done some work fixing this one and there's plenty of independent news coverage about it Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or delete, either would be appropriate) The references added since the original nomination all fall under the banner of WP:LOCALCOVERAGE (since most are from the local council newspaper) or non-independent sources. There are two references to the club from the website of the Herald Sun, which ostensibly meets the threshold of being a major statewide newspaper – but a closer look would suggest that those are both the 'Local Footy' section of the newspaper's website, which tends to be an online mirror of affiliated council newspapers – plus they're quite WP:ROUTINE. On the balance of everything I don't think it quite meets a GNG hurdle. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]