Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:DSA

Purge server cache

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

• adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
• removing closed AFDs.
• removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

• tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Australia}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Australia}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

See also: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

This list is also included in the general list of deletion debates related to Oceania.

Contents 1 Ongoing deletion debates 1.1 100 series bus routes, Sydney 1.2 Little Lover 1.3 Hillbrook Anglican School 1.4 Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia) 1.5 Trevor Marshall 1.6 Nintek 1.7 Barbara Biggs 1.8 ACN 121 239 674 Limited 1.9 Kay Mousley 1.10 Ben Mitchell (singer) 1.11 Holden Street, Fitzroy North, Melbourne 1.12 Ozlabs 1.13 Scott Novum

[edit] Ongoing deletion debates

Deletion debates culled from WP:AFD and WP:MFD

[edit] 100 series bus routes, Sydney

100 series bus routes, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

WP is not a directory, plus information is already provided in Buses in Sydney page. This page is redundant. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all of the same nature:

200 series bus routes, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

300 series bus routes, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

400 series bus routes, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

500 series bus routes, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

600 series bus routes, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

700 series bus routes, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

800 series bus routes, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

900 series bus routes, Sydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NightRide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

matt-(my page-leave me a message) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC

Comment - The related pages wasnt transcluded properly, so its been done now. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The question of concern is how often these are changed. In the ACT, the bus routes are changed every couple of years.Capitalistroadster 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Lover

Little Lover (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Seems to be quite a while since the last AfD, and I guess this should be redisscussed rather then a CSD G4. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to High Voltage (Australian album).--Dakota 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with High Voltage. It was never a single and it isn't an album track of particular note. Capitalistroadster 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or include the salient detail in the album article under "trivia", maybe. My understanding of worthiness for articles is (it's quite simple): album, EP, or single, yes - not individual songs, regardless of notability thereof. Bubba hotep 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge -- into High Voltage (Australian album). Was never released as a single. - Longhair\^talk 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillbrook Anglican School

Hillbrook Anglican School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Hillbrook Anglican School administration prefers that the official Hillbrook website be maintained as the primary source of online information for Hillbrook Anglican School. This Wikipedia entry's net effect as an information resource was considered negative in light of the frequency of graffiti events. Slartimitvar 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — Slartimitvar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. The Hillbrook School administrations views are irrelevant to whether we have an article and I think that it is doubtful that the article would encourage vandals. There seem to be enough information available through Google News Archive to write an article on this school. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Capitalistroadster. I'm not sure I've ever seen a less valid reason for deletion. Slartimitvar: Please read Wikipedia's deletion policy. -- Antepenultimate 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - if you've got problems on an article about your school, so fix them. Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that everything must be compliant with WP:NPOV. MER-C 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable school and per invalid deletion reason. Heimstern Läufer 03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See Wikipedia:Deletion policy and try to find a valid reason to get it deleted. The above nomination is not it.--Kchase T 04:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A few more things. First, this is not a valid candidate for speedy keep according to WP:SK. I considered closing it anyway, but I think leaving it open for the full five may elicit valuable commentary on why it shouldn't be deleted. Leaving it open also permits a more solid AfD, thereby discouraging future attempts with this reasoning. Finally, I'd encourage people who read this to add the article to your watchlists and revert vandalism and nonsense as you see it. We have a ton of recent changes patrollers, but some things get past that net. Concerns like those expressed by the nominator shouldn't prompt us to delete articles, but they also shouldn't be ignored. If someone complains about vandalism to an article they have reason to be concerned about, the solution is putting it on your watchlist and reverting the nonsense faster. Let's help them out if we can!--Kchase T 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Excellent reasoning, by the way. It's winter here, and boredom abounds, so why not? -- Antepenultimate 05:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Capitalistroadster. JROBBO 05:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oh, this nomination made me die a little inside. That is a terrible reason to delete. Keep, Keep, a thousand times keep! StayinAnon 07:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hold on there guys. The nominator doesn't really raise a valid reason to delete, but if the school's website is the only non-trivial source that we could use to write a good article on this school, then that would be a valid reason to delete. If no other sources on this school can be found, the article should be deleted per WP:N. Pan Dan 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea, but that battle's been had and lost. See WP:AFDP#Education. Whatever its merits, the precedent is on the side of keeping articles about high schools. There's also a lukewarm quote by Jimbo Wales around somewhere.--Kchase T 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The link you provided says "fewer than 15% [have been] actually deleted" -- I take that to mean at least, say, 5%, have been deleted? For example see the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collier High School -- result was delete due to failure of WP:N (which is apparently a problem with this school too). Pan Dan 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well sure, some do get deleted. If you look at the actual precedent, though, they tend to get kept unless they are inordinately small or something else makes them minor compared to other high schools. The way that precedent was established is very controversial, but now that it's there, I think we ought to keep all high schools of any significance for consistency's sake. Otherwise we get the "my high school was deleted but some and such's high school is still here!" whiners, WP:INN notwithstanding.--Kchase T 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If you want to vote delete, then just go ahead and vote delete, you don't need our permission. However, the precedent of a 95% keep rate (by your own math) should make someone pause and consider why this may be. One possible explanation is that schools, by their very nature, cannot avoid being discussed by multiple, independent third party sources - their student performance, their sports, their budgets, their school board elections, and so on and so forth. Just because sources aren't listed doesn't mean they do not exist. With schools, therefore, the issue likely becomes verifiability, and possibilities for merger (such as a particular High School merging with its host district's article). As this school appears to be somewhat independent, merger doesn't appear to be an option. Verifiability seems to be provided by the school's website. If more is needed for verifiability, I'm sure it won't be hard to find. -- Antepenultimate 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • First, I haven't recommended to delete because I haven't checked to see if there are actually sources out there in this case. Second, I would just point out in response to some of your comment, that the multiple third-party sources you suggest exist for schools -- featuring school games, budgets, elections, etc. -- should be considered trivial. They're not enough to show notability or to write a good Wikipedia article -- do you really think that a school article should be a collection of student performance stats, sagas about local football rivalries, and budgets? Of course there are some high schools that have attracted the attention of the publishers in a non-trivial way and meet WP:N. I would hazard to guess that at least 90% of high schools don't meet WP:N. Pan Dan 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, what constitutes trivial per WP:N are one-sentence mentionings of a subject in a larger article, or the subject being little more than an entry in a larger table or graph. In many cases mentioned above, the school would be a primary subject of the article, which WP:N is very specific about. Of course it would be silly to include budgets and school stats, but other valuable info (school size, history, socio-economic demographics, when it was established, where it is located, if students happen to perform particularly well or poorly in academics or sports, etc.) could be readily available. And WP:N does not say that all such articles or the information contained within must be used as a basis for the article, it simply requires that they exist as a test for notability. (At least that's how I read it. It's kind of vague.) Also, check out the proposed guidelines at WP:SCHOOL, which includes as a footnote at the bottom: Newspaper coverage includes regular coverage in local media (such as complete stories about a school's athletic program). It also mentions "public reports by schools inspection agencies" as being acceptable for notability-determining purposes. Now I'm not from Australia and really don't know how they go about things there, but I guess I like to pick my battles when it comes to deletions, as I can't possibly see the harm in leaving this info. "Wikipedia is not paper" and all that. I imagine that for most, the same logic that tells us to keep all articles about every town and village also tells us that it's perfectly fine to include schools as well. -- Antepenultimate 23:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
          • In fairness I should mention that another proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Schools3 takes a different approach to this, in fact some might say the opposite approach. And they say notability is not subjective... -- Antepenultimate 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
            • (1) A series of local articles in the paper about the school's football games, or budget, don't show notability. They should be considered trivial in the sense that we could not use that kind of information to fill up an encyclopedia article. (2) "WP:N does not say that all such articles or the information contained within must be used as a basis for the article" -- WP:N does say that "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic." If the only published encyclopedic info about a school is on its website, which is a single source (note we require multiple sources) and unreliable (as it has not gone through an editorial process and as it is first-party), then there is no way to write a good encyclopedia article about the school. Wikipedia is not a mirror of school websites. Pan Dan 12:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I've added a reference. Unfortunately my database searches are limited to the past two years of articles. Since Pan Dan will undoubtedly remind us all again of the requirement for multiple sources, let me just say that I would bet money that some very non-trivial articles were likely written in 1986 when this school was founded, or in 1987 when its first academic year began. However, not living in Australia and not being able to frequent their libraries, I have no way of confirming this. I have already wasted enough time on this. My intention in the above discussion was to try and logically deduce why such an overwhelming precedent exists for school articles being kept on Wikipedia. Obviously it doesn't fit snuggly into a strict reading of the guidelines, or these AfDs that formed the basis of that precedent would have never been nominated in the first place. I suspect that, instead of trying to brainstorm these reasons only to have Pan Dan pick them apart one-by-one, we can probably just chalk it up to WP:IGNORE and be done with it. -- Antepenultimate 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Invalid bad faith nomination. --- RockMFR 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely keep. I'm sorry, but you don't get to choose whether or not you have a Wikipedia article. -Toptomcat 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be a well intentioned but misguided attempt to control the information about this school. I don't think this is a speedy situation and I second Kchase; this should run it's course to establish consensus, even though no valid deletion reason was given. I'd also urge editors to put this on their watchlist.--Isotope23 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, an administration site is obviously POV and should *not* be the only source of information available. If they don't like it, too bad -- their authority doesn't extend to Wikipedia. Birdboy2000 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I cannot find the reason given for the deletion to be valid. TSO1D 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Howrealisreal 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep schools shouldn't be deleted-- also per above--Xiahou 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not a valid reason for deletion. Ckessler 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia)

Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

non-notable indy wrestling promotion which fails WP:V and WP:CORP BooyakaDell 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Professional Championship Wrestling" Australia gets one relevant mention in Google News Archive in the Moonee Valley Leader. [1]. Doesn't seem to be notable enough. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whadda ya mean, we're gonna have to see each and every wrestling promotion on the planet!? I don't think so! --Mhking 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Carnage controversy made all the mainstream media outlets. Ask any Australian wrestling fan - they'll tell you. Nomination is ridiculous. Curse of Fenric 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are in a mediation with me, the nominator of the article. I don't think you should be saying that the "nomination is ridiculous."BooyakaDell 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You made this nomination while in mediation when told not to edit. Hence the statement. Curse of Fenric 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Additional information - article title "'Scary' wrestling could be illegal" published in the Melbourne Age (one of the city's two major daily newspapers) during the week following the event. It didn't come up in a Google search because you have to pay for it to read it now - as it took place in 2002. But it's there! Curse of Fenric 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: A search on EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand Reference Database comes up with 4 articles for Professional Championship Wrestling including the Melbourne Age article referred to above as well as Herald Sun article called "No punching bags" an article in the 2005 Geelong Advertiser called "Midget wrestles big boys" and an article in the Geelong News called "Men in Tights here to fight". It is closer to notability on this although I am not yet convinced. Capitalistroadster 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish - the incident in 2002 had a MAJOR effect on the local scene making things tougher on it through the stronger application of public liability insurance. Again - I say SPEEDY KEEP! A major part of indy wrestling history in Melbourne (Australia's second largest city) will be lost. Curse of Fenric 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly meets WP:CORP, would suggest information is verified though. 81.155.178.248 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above/unsourced/NN. /Blaxthos 17:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Notability has been established, WP:CORP states;

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations...

The newspaper articles are noted above 81.155.178.248 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - hasn't this been nominated previously for deletion? I can't seem to find anything suggesting that - was it a related article? JROBBO 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Previous related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Wrestling EntertainmentPaul foord 13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor Marshall

Trevor Marshall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article about Trevor Marshall needs to be removed. He is a scientist who is currently working on a hypothesis that has not been embraced by peer based review. I feel that he or someone close to hime is trying to push his case using wikipedia.
1. WP:NOT#OR
2. WP:NOT#SOAP
Also refer to Talk:sarcoidosis
The following sources have been critical of Trevor Marshall: [[2]](Authoritative BMJ source) [[3]]
His own websites, including a resume are: [[4]] [[5]] Note the similarity to the discussed Wikipedia entry
A man with two or three PubMed publications should not be on Wikipedia. Savisha 09:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The user already has his user-site on wikipedia on which he argues his hypothesis. It can be found on User:Trevmar.--Savisha 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - OR at its best, vanity at its worst. Delete as nn. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The more poorly understood the condition, the more odd hypotheses and unproven treatments arise. If the treatments are barely notable, the inventor is even less so. JFW | T@lk 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to detract slightly from the apparent consensus. Please note that I have no affiliation with the above person, and had never heard of him prior to this morning. However, upon reviewing his recent publication list, I feel that Savisha's comment, though well-intended, is misleading: "A man with two or three PubMed publications...". More important is the fact that he has published in two of the five most prominant medical journals that exist, mainly the CMAJ and The Lancet, and thus, in my opinion, is entitled to a brief article that is neutral in nature and adequately presents both sides of whichever controversal hypothesis he argues. --JE.at.UWO^U|_T 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I need to say that I have no personal issue with that man. However I do have a problem with him advertising his methods on Wikipedia - He and his colleauge have tried to include the treatment (for which he has no accepted publication not to speak of a randomised controlled trial) in the article for Sarcoidosis. The two publications you are referring to are both short responses to articles, they are not true publications.--Savisha 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This appears to be a content dispute about a researcher whose notability is established. Saying "He is wrong" is not a good basis for deletion. Go and edit boldly or do RfC. Edison 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying he is wrong. He has not published anything important to be notable. And what is clear, is that his treatment, which he is so proud of has not been proven scientifically by Trials.--Savisha 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that I really wanted to get involved in this, but in my dealings with this individual I did do a PubMed search (which I have pasted below). You can clearly see that the "papers" published in CMAJ and the Lancet are not papers but are, in fact, author replies (i.e. usually disagreement with what the authors of the papers did publish).

1. Trevor Marshall. Are statins analogues of vitamin D? Lancet. 2006 Oct 7;368(9543):1234; author reply 1235. No abstract available. PMID: 17027719
2. Marshall TG, Lee RE, Marshall FE. Common angiotensin receptor blockers may directly modulate the immune system via VDR, PPAR and CCR2b. Theor Biol Med Model. 2006 Jan 10;3:1. PMID: 16403216
3. Marshall TG, Marshall FE.Sarcoidosis succumbs to antibiotics--implications for autoimmune disease. Autoimmun Rev. 2004 Jun;3(4):295-300. Review. PMID: 15246025
4. Marshall TG. Puzzling vitamin D results. CMAJ. 2002 Oct 15;167(8):849; author reply 849-50. No abstract available. PMID: 12406940

So in reality that is just two papers, and one of these is in a highly specialized journal. I disagree with the inclusion of his aggrandizing, soapbox type article, and I do not think that he is anymore notable as a scientist than thousands of other people. Delete Just my $0.02.--DO11.10 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected (and slightly embarrased:) in my (premature) statement that he had published the papers in CMAJ and The Lancet. I suppose this is what I get for trying to edit on wikipedia during exam time! Anyway, if it can be established that he has insignificant notoriety then I say delete it. I would be in favour of adding a section on either sarcodiosis or vitamin D to something to the effect of: Researchers have also proposed blah blah blah treatment, etc (Marshall T et al.) and then site his journal or something. --JE.at.UWO^U|_T 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Nobody has yet mentioned the WP requirements for balanced coverage. We do not omit theories that are rejected by the medical or scientific community but which have gotten public attention. What we do is include a mention of them in the article on the disease or the theory, of proportional importance as judged by those editing there. As for the person, he needs more than this, right or wrong.DGG 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems I will need to add a few things in the view of the above comments.

• Dr Marshall (PhD in electric engineering/diabetes) and a user called Palbert have already tried to include their views on the articles on Sarcoidosis and Vitamin D, and their views have been rightly not allowed to be included in the content. For the disscussions please see Talk:Sarcoidosis and Talk:Vitamin D
• I will take Sarcoidosis as an example. I am myself no big fan of corticosteroids, and I embrace the fact that Dr Marshall is hypothesising a different aetiology and treatment. This is worth looking for, and the Oxford Textbook of Medicine, 4th ed. does suggest a protoplast form of Mycobacterium tuberculosis as one of several possibilities. Now the problem: T Marshall is selling his treatment as being for Sarcoidosis, he has not published ANYTHING for that in peer-review journals. However, there has been Published literature on alternatives to corticosteroids one of the more notable authors being [R.P. Baughman], who recently even published [an article] in the Lancet. If you want too beef up the Sarcoidosis article I would suggest you add people like Baughman rather that Marshall.
• Lastly, why I got involved in this. I belive that the greatest danger for Wikipedia are not vandals or editors who post hoaxes. In a specialist field like medicine, people like Trevor Marshall or whoever wrote the article are far more dangerous - his article on himself looks very professional, and he uses what looks like scientific papers to back up his arguments (some of these he published in a journal he set up himself). To a lay user, who has sarcoidosis, for example, this may look very serious, and he may be fooled. He will then go onto Marshall's website and maybe even join his therapy, for which there is not a hint of scientific evidence (Please remember that a significant result in a Randomised controlled trial is needed to verify a treatment).
• Marshall seems to be very keen on putting his point forward, and his contributions have been doubtful at times: [[6]],[[7]. He has however been very active on the internet, and his wikipedia activity as well as his webpages are a testimony to this: [[8]] [[9]] [[10]]. He also not an academic at any University, but rather set up his own institute, with a few nurses.
• Marshall's Protocol seems to be a wonder treatment for [diseases] including Crohn's, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Sarcoidosis etc. see link.
• Marshall's Protocol is not alone in the world of unproven and unpublished hypotheses. There are many other so called Protocols as exemplified by this [website] on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Are you going to include Marshall and all other Protocols? None of them are proven scientifically. Or are you going to include Marshall because his internet presence is more bold? There are so many more important things than his small-print research.
• Finally @DGG: You say that We do not omit theories that are rejected by the medical or scientific community but which have gotten public attention. 1. What do you base his public attention on? His own publicity on himself? 2. In science I think that it IS important whether someone has been embraced by peer-based-review or has not been able to publish because his articles were seen as not up to the standard. I do not believe we are here to publish random hypotheses. Especially if you look at the Articles for Sarcoidosis and Vitamin D, they include the barest minimum of information including a random hypothesis might lead a lay user to the idea that Marshall's small print stuff is mainstream!
• What is also funny, someone has added him as a notable producer of Home-made synthesizers on Wikipedia Synthesizer#Homemade_synthesizers. He is an electrical engineer, and as a medic I cannot assess whether his home-made synthesizer was more important than other ones in the history of these things.

Sorry for the lengthly elaboration. If users were reading the links, it would be much easier to argue. I think the whole thing is VANITY and he does not deserve a single mention on Wikipedia.--Savisha 05:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintek

Nintek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. This article has been written with the assumed intent of advertising information about the company, and reads as if it has been written by a person working for the company question. While it may be a company, it's activities or operations have had no significant impact on made no significant contribution to the industry in which it resides. Article also lacks significant citations, particularly in relation to financial status and such information could only be known by a company insider. Thewinchester 07:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As a local, these guys have zero retail presence except on the net. They didn't even advertise in yesterday's West (which has two A3 pages devoted to classified ads for computer stores). Fails WP:CORP absolutely. MER-C 10:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm the Primary Author for this article. The company is one of the top 3 online retailers in Australia, and is widely considered to be the top innovator within the IT industry. All financial information is cited in the West Australian article. The company has now been the subject of 5 non-trivial articles regarding their bulk buying project, and is facing increasing industry criticism as a result of their operations. Suggest the article be improved to conform with Wikipedia standards, instead of being deleted. Atchung 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Additional Supporting Comments by Proposer. Also invoking WP:V as an additional reason for deletion of this article. I still doubt heavily that even with a massive re-write it would come close to meeting either the letter or the spirit of WP:CORP regardless of any increased conversation about it's business practice. It's practices have no significant national or trans-national impact, and the issue is not receiving significant coverage in the mainstream press, invoking WP:CORP#fn_6_back as these are not major authored works, but one time press articles about a minor and localised issues. The company is private and is not used in the calculation of ASX indices. My request for deletion under WP:CORP remains. Further to the citations of financial status, this was information provided to the newspaper in question by the company themselves and would not meet the criteria of WP:V and WP:REF being that the information is not independently verifiable. Consistent with WP:V, such citations do not meet the Burden_of_evidence section of this policy. thewinchester 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thewinchester (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I rarely say keep about a debatable corporate article, but 1/the article itself is weitten objectively and 2/itdoes seem to be a matter of public controversy--and an interesting one.No policy says mainstream press is a requirement, but rather the press apprpriate for the subject field. this is the english language WP, not the US-UK WP, and I will go by what the Australians here think. DGG 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The company just sorta meets WP:CORP.1 but they look like press releases not independant writing. IT doesn't help that this is the only article User:Atchung has worked on - so his arguements don't sway me very much.Garrie 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Biggs

Barbara Biggs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I deleted this under CSD A7. The user re-created the page, and added substantially more information (secions 3 and down). What do you all think. No Stance —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- I think this person is sufficiently noteworthy. Reyk _YO! 02:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Possibly notable; I added a refs tag and categorized it. Akihabara 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Disclosure: I have been in extensive dialogue with Barb Biggs on her talk page. The page submitted is an autobiography written by the subject. I think before we can accept this there will need to be many independent sources cited and/or an extensive reduction of the content. I advised her to compile her notability sources and I was intending to consider writing one myself if, after verifying the sources she had a notable and verifiable biography. Alan.ca 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I'm finding this a very notable person. [11][12][13][14]. If there's a serious vanity issue, I have no problem deleting it to a stub and letting it grow. But definately a notable person. --Oakshade 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oakshade, if this is your position, than strip it down to a stub based on referenced material and the AfD debate can continue on the stub article. My may concern is Conflict of Interest at this point. I have been working with Barbara on her talk page and I intend to continue to do so to find material that may be relevant.Alan.ca 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Despite the fact that I have been working with Barbara on her talk page, due to this process, I have taken some time to look at the reposted article. I removed all references to articles Barb Biggs wrote as that would clearly be Conflict of Interest. Further, I reformmated the 3 provided citations and removed a great deal of uncited statements. That said, I offer this section of wp:bio for contemplation as I think this is the nature of our debate:

--- The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

• This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:
  • Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

--- The citations we currently have in the article, two of them are interviews and one is an independent article. The interviews, I am interested to read the thoughts of others. Do we consider interview statements made by the subject reliable sources? Barbara is making some rather controversial statements about the barrister, that I have not seen confirmed by anyone but Barbara herself. If we choose to accept the interviews as reliable sources we may be reprinting something that is not a reliable statement. Lastly we have the "Hollingworth in 'journey of discovery'" article from theage.com.au. The Hollingworth article reads as credible as it is not simply an article, but I personally cannot speak for the reliability of the source. Anyone on that subject have a thought? I have not touched on the book citations, I would like to read your thoughts on these 3 first. Thank you for your patience. Alan.ca 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble understanding your issue, Alan. First of all, she was a sole primary guest of the BBC program Woman's Hour [15] and that's the audio interview (actually, by listening to it, it sound more like a discussion with the host [16]). That she was chosen as the primary guest on a long running popular national radio show is an example of notability in itself. And I would strongly argue that an "inteview" is very different from an "autobiogrpahy". The other two pieces currently in the article certainly aren't "trival coverage" (not just a "mention" or a listing).[17][18] She's the "Primary subject". As almost always, when there's a journalistic piece of somebody, they contain quotes from the subject. Correct me if I'm but, but just because they contain those quotes, you seem to be labeling these as autobiographies. They're not at all. And none of these are "self published works" in any way. ; The Age articles and the BBC interview are not published by this subject. This passes WP:BIO easily. --Oakshade 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The point I am raising for discussion is the value of sourcing a statement the subject of the biography made in an interview. I think the idea of independent sourcing relates to remarks others have written that support the article about the subject. When you are citing the subject, even if it's in a national interview, the source is not the interviewer, but the subject themself.Alan.ca 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only dealing with the issue of notability, not exacly verification of the article content. I'm looking at these articles closely and I'm finding a majority of the Nitika Mansingh and Damien Murphy written ones have only a small minority of actual quotes of the subject and are mostly about her rathing than listening to her. I agree that the article content should not be verfied by the actual statements of the sujbect, whether they are from that BBC interview or the written articles, except as written in journalist form that actually cites the subject, ie. "According to Ms. Biggs, when she was 5..." --Oakshade 09:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep I am not familiar with the radio show in question, but in the U.S., being the primary guest of a tabloid TV show means very little. Some shows even put on fake guests or coach guests into elaborating their stories. The reputation of the show is very much at issue here. That said, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons requires that any accusations she has made against still-living persons be independently verified, or else that the accusation itself be sufficiently notorious that it has wide press coverage. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  Woman's Hour is very similar to a US NPR show. Think like All Things Considered or Fresh Air but specifically focused on women. You can listen to the audio link and judge for yourself.[19] --Oakshade 16:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can't seem to read the file, but I accept your word that this is not Jerry Springer. I am still uncomfortable with the idea of naming an accused based only on her say-so, but that is an issue distinct from deletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Audio files are always iffy. It's realPlayer. Just for information, there are at least 3 non-interview sources in the article now. I still won't argue about content verification (like the accusaions) only being her word without an outside source. --Oakshade 06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'Barbara Biggs' Alan.ca 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A friend alerted me to this page which I didn't even know existed, although Alan had mentioned there was a debate going on somewhere! - main reason I haven't responded to the debate. First point I'd like to make is that the barrister died in the 1990s. This was first rreported in a fourpage article Good Weekend, one of Australia's most respected liftout magazines in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers (Melbourne) in 2003 when my book came out. I will try to find a reference to this, however I find that often older articles are hard to find. The main reason dozens of articles about me haven't come up when I do google searches I presume. I was also interviewed on BBC World Service when In Moral Danger came out in the UK. Once again, if I can't find it on google, I don't know where else to find older references. If anyone knows, please let me know. In one version posted, there were references for the publishers sites listing In Moral Danger in Sweden, Greece and Japan. They are in the languages of those countries, but if you don't allow weblinks in other languages, this isn't necessarily going to be reported, since it isn't considered relevant news, in English publications. If anyone knows where such a source could be found, let me know. As for notability, there are pages of interviews about me on google, including some of the most respected interviewers in Australia - Phillip Adams, Robyn Williams (30 years presenting on ABC radio), George Negus (30 years Oz TV), Australia's top rating Sunrise breakfast news TV program three times. These are not cited but I will try to find them. As for the political career. Unsure why this was deleted since my candidacy was reported in Nitika Mansinghe's article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barbbiggs (talk • contribs).

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you for clarifying that the barrister is no longer a living person, which relieves BLP concerns. If the name goes back, a date of death with citation would be nice -- perhaps he has a capsule biography in Who's Who or some equivalent? A Lexis/Nexis search might help as well. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've managed to find many articles and interviews which I've slotted in, but not the crucial Good Weekend one. It's too old I think. The Sydney Morning Herald archives only back back 12 months. Also, I've found a Japanese amazon.jp site and cited that for the Japanese publication (this is in Japanese, but the book, In Moral Danger and my name is written in English on the site) but amazon doesn't have websites in Greece or Sweden. Of course I cited Greek and Swedish sites before, but somebody has deleted them, presumably because they are in a foreign language. I'd certainly like to know how other people verify that their books have been translated into other languages. In any case, see how you go with the sources now cited and keep me posted Barbbiggs

See my comments on the talk page, where detailed discussion belongs. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on the talk link in your posting above and got a page for Robert West, which I presume is you? couldn't find your posting there but will look again. Barbbiggs 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant Talk:Barbara Biggs, which is where discussion of improvements to the article belong. This page is solely for discussions about whether the article should be deleted. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep What is WP for if not articles on people who have written books about their experiences that have become obvious matters of public controversy. DGG 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACN 121 239 674 Limited

ACN 121 239 674 Limited (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not notable Uni club. Does not pass WP:ORG DXRAW 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- DXRAW 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep It appears that you didn't read the article. This article concerns an organisation composed of, and replacing, three uni student organisations that have not had notability problems in the past. Joestella 09:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment for Joestella or whomever is in the know: Is this shelf company temporary, or is the new org to be named something without so many numbers in it, or is this the permanent name of the new organizaton? How that's answered will decide what happens from here. --Dennisthe2 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The article says "The transitional board will choose a name for the organisation before the commencement on Session 1, 2007. The new name is understood to be "Arc"." Joestella 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, I'd have to say weak delete. The transitional company itself is a transitional company and nothing more, and will, as near as I can tell, be effectively discarded in favor of the new org name ("Arc", or whatever it comes to be). It's not to say I'd discharge the new org - I'd likely not. --Dennisthe2 03:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rename. I don't like the name as no-one is going to look for this name. Keep and rename to the actual name chosen by students asap. Given that most students on campus are members or at least contribute funds, it is more important than your run of the mill studnet club. Possibly merge with University of NSW. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I plan to rename it, as soon as I can confirm the new name. Joestella 01:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. We have articles on student unions - just because this one has a provisional name doesn't mean it should be deleted, because it has that name for a good reason - the situation with student unions is in a state of flux, and I have no doubt that it will be given a name soon. enochlau (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kay Mousley

Kay Mousley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I don't think being an electoral commissioner is notable. The others at the page's link don't have pages on Wikipedia. Akihabara 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't seem notable enough. NawlinWiki 02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 04:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - only trivial mentions on Google, 1 news ghit, also a trivial mention. MER-C 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no news mention outside the job and her job is simply not significant enough to sustain an article. Does not pass any part of WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete don't think electoral commissioner per se is a notible position. SkierRMH,08:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is hard to have an article on the elections in South Australia without having an article on the person who runs those elections, which is what an electoral commissioner does. The article has references. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly trivial claim to notability. Rebecca 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She is South Australia's first female Electoral Commissiooner and there are 30 Google News Archives results. [20] The article is referenced which puts her across the line for me. The person above should sign their comment. Oops as should I. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That is perhaps of note. If you'd like the article to be kept, can you please update it to mention this and provide the references so it unambiguously passes WP:BIO for notability. Thanks. Akihabara 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reference added as requested. I can't figure out how to use the referencing system so I have added it manually. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to have to say Keep, based on the points of the person above me. Could use a little bit of cleanup though. Lankiveil 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
• Definitely keep - per Australian Electoral Commission being an important post, and first female at that. More notable than 90% of bios on Wikipedia. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Mitchell (singer)

Ben Mitchell (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

• Non-notable musician; all links to the page were created by the author of the page. Ashadeofgrey^Talk 20:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ben Mitchell is a notable musician under the guidelines. In 2006 he toured Europe with performances in Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin (Popkomm music festival) and London. An independant musician his debut CD is released by MGM distribution and available internationally through digitial distribution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozmusicwriter (talk • contribs).
• Delete as non-notable musician. Releasing a cd isn't inherently notable, nor is playing some gigs. I checked the Australian Music Prize external link and it seems that musicians can enter that themselves. I've already removed the input of an external link from the Ben Mitchell disambig page and it was replaced by this article. MLA 00:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. MGM is a notable independent record company in my book. However, except for the Americana UK, there seems to be few independent sources for this article and I haven't been able to find any. If more sources are located, I will change my mind. Sources for his European tour or an Australian tour, reviews of the album etc would help change my mind. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - needs reliable non-trivial sources and NPOV; the article is just not convincing that he meets WP:MUSIC. -IceCreamAntisocial 05:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Lankiveil 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup and keep - single on major label (MGM) and both national and continental tours make subject satisfy WP:MUSIC, albeit weakly as a "newcomer." B.Wind 03:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It says he toured Europe, which would mean he passes WP:MUSIC; however, that statement doesn't have a source. If it can be referenced, then keep. —ShadowHalo 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holden Street, Fitzroy North, Melbourne

Holden Street, Fitzroy North, Melbourne (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable street. We don't need articles for most streets in the world, notability stops at the town level, except for very famous streets (Champs Elysées or Times Square, that level). Fails WP:V to show any importance beyond existence (I don't doubt its existence, for all clarity) Fram 06:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It does exist but some bus stops and a school crossing do not add up to notability. (aeropagitica) 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under A7, no assertion of notability. Although the author has asked on the talk page for it not to be deleted pending more information, in its current state, I don't see the article improving much as any notability would have already been outlined. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are loads of articles on Wikipedia about various streets in the USA (for example: Decatur Street, Spur_557, Bennington_Street,_East_Boston,_MA ) If these are considered notable enough, them sure this article is too? Markb 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The first is a disambiguation page, but should better be deleted as well (disambiguating between two redlinks that probably don't deserve individual articles is quite unnecessary), the second is a highway (highways are deemed more important than other streets), and the thirdd should better be deleted as well. You can see from the talk pages of these articles (first and third one) that they have not been discussed for deletion yet, so there is no way to know if they are considered notable enough (I doubt many editors would think so). There are many, many articles on Wikipedia that don't belong here, but there aren't enough of us checking articles to get rid of them. You are unlucky to have been spotted, those other streets have not been spotted until now and so are not up for deletion yet. Fram 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article does not make any claims of notability. A Google Search does not indicate notability with the first returns being real estate listings. [21].

A Google News Archive search comes up with stories about contaminated soil in a playground, Melbourne real estate values and a traffic accident but nothing indicating any notability for this street. [22]. I will leave a message for User:Cnwb as he is a local but I see nothing notable about this street. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not really a notable street. Lankiveil 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
• Delete, I live near this street and there's nothing notable about it at all. --Canley 08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I live in the area, and I can attest to the fact that this is not a notable street. Cnwb 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Inter alia Bert Newton grew up on this street. Why does googlability have to be standard? Have our lives been reduced to this? Lentisco 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Two comments. First, Google indicates what we (non-local editors) can find about the subject when the article makes no claims to notability and provides no sources. It indicates that we have tried to find indications of notability with the means available to us. Everyone participating in this discussion is free to provide off-google sources of course, and then (but only then) the argument "but there's nothing on Google" becomes invalid. Second, a street does not become notable because someone notable lived there. A street becomes notable when there are secondary sources about the street (and not mentioning it in passing), as per WP:V. So even if you would produce a source qtating that Bert Newton lived there, it would still not help you unless the source went on to discuss the street at some length. In the absence of such sources, the street is non notable, fails WP:V, and should be deleted. Fram 10:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into the Fitzroy North article. Perhaps a subsection on main thoroughfares in the Transport section. --Polaron | Talk 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- no claim to fame. - Longhair\^talk 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ozlabs

Ozlabs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable vanity. Having been a part of Ozlabs for about a year, it seems easier to AfD than to add my name. This is one of many deparments within IBM; the company has tens of thousands of deparments, and thousands of brilliant engineers, many more notable and acheived than the folks listed here. Most Harvard professors or the depts they're in don't rank an article on WP; I don't see the point of starting to list rank-n-file corporate employees. Since I work with many of these people here, sorry, my apologies in advance, but WP is not the place for this. linas 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Why is wikipedia not the place for this? Wikipedia has become a general reference point. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. The OzLabs team in Canberra is a significant entity in the Australian Open Source Development community. I agree the article could do with more detail, and more explanation of the team's place in the Australian, and global open source development community. --CatS 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 04:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would support keeping it if it was responsible for significant breakthroughs in computer science. The article does not give any examples of things that would make it notable. Google News Archive confirms that it is an IBM Linux Laboratory but neither article establishes notability in my view. [23]

Capitalistroadster 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ozlabs is the largest and most notable collection of Free Software developers in Australia. Linas' assertion that he's "been a part of Ozlabs" indicates that the article is not as clear as it should be.

--Rusty 02:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure if the article is trying to be more about the original organisation founded by Linuxcare than it is about the current organisation with the same name? Maybe "Ozlabs" isn't that rare a name among international organisations with labs (of any sort) in Australia.Garrie 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)