Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Oceania 2 Ongoing deletion debates 2.1 Little Lover 2.2 Hillbrook Anglican School 2.3 Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia) 2.4 Trevor Marshall 2.5 Nintek 2.6 Barbara Biggs 2.7 ACN 121 239 674 Limited 2.8 Kay Mousley 2.9 Ben Mitchell (singer) 2.10 Holden Street, Fitzroy North, Melbourne 2.11 Ozlabs 2.12 Scott Novum 2.13 Western Suburbs Rosellas 2.14 Melbourne Beer War 3 New Zealand 3.1 South Otago High School 3.2 Cat:Cities and towns in New Zealand rename 3.3 Stonebridge Estate 3.4 2006 Auckland waterfront vs. Eden Park debate 3.5 Canary Data Solutions 4 Elsewhere in Oceania 4.1 Jonathan Fifi'i

[edit] Oceania

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Oceania. 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|Oceania}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Oceania}} 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.

Shortcut: WP:DSA

[edit] Ongoing deletion debates

Deletion debates culled from WP:AFD and WP:MFD

[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)

[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)
• 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)

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)

[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)

[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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 11:41, 10 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. [6][7][8][9]. 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 [10] and that's the audio interview (actually, by listening to it, it sound more like a discussion with the host [11]). 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).[12][13] 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.[14] --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)

[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)

[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. [15] 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)

[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. [16].

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. [17]. 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)

[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)

• 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. [18]

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)

[edit] Scott Novum

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

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Nothing cited. Google returns zero hits for this name. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Australia hasn't had the death penalty since '67, so he couldn't have been hung. Fake! Fake! WLU 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This is biggest load of crap I ever heard. There are no sources and the article was clearly made up as the writer went along. Hell this should have been speedy deleted. Debaser23 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - speedy is not out of the picture, I simply nominated as it did not appear to be a simple speedy delete to me. (I have done over 1200 CAT:CSD deletions in the last few days) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't qualify as WP:Nonsense, and WP:HOAX isn't a valid speedy criteria. However, author is a single purpose account, so I'd {{db-test}} it if you want to get it over with. --DeLarge 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious fiction. There must surely be at least one {{speedy}} category that it drops into?--Anthony.bradbury 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. Assuming the reference to London slums, Alfred Deakin and execution by hanging make the date of birth simply a typo of 1876 instead of 1976, this is not completely infeasible. I don't think calls for speedy deletion are appropriate until it can be shown that the reference provided is false, and this individual did not exist. OK, it's unlikely: Deakin worked as a journalist despite being a qualified lawyer, and there is no mention on Google despite being an apparently infamous serial killer. I'll do a bit more research into it. --Canley 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I put the speedy tag on this. It seemed like such an obvious hoax, so obvious that I highly doubted an AfD would have anything other than a barrage of "delete" votes. IrishGuy ^talk 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

*Move to Fredrick Bayley Deeming. At first I though this to be a hoax, but some quick research reveals an identical story for Deeming. See this [19] and this [20] (about two thirds of the way down). Teiresias84 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, well done, good research! Maybe this is just an attack/hoax page built around a real story. --Canley 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hats off for finding that, but I'm not going to change my vote, my primary motivation being that I reckon it's a WP:Copyvio (although I have no direct evidence, just a gut feeling from reading the reference at the bottom). Also -- and I suppose I'd need a count of other 19th century Anglo-Australian serial killer articles to be sure -- the fact that there isn't an article under the guy's correct name suggests he might not meet our notability criteria? --DeLarge 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::*Having googled Frederick Deeming more reliable sources have turned up - notabily this one [21] and this one[22]. I think these sources confirm his (Deeming that is, not "Novum") notabilty. The article of course needs to be wikified as well, and if we end up moving the article it will probably be re-written sufficently (by me probably) that it wouldn't be a copyvio anyway. Teiresias84 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A search of reliable sources available through the public library system comes up with nothing on this guy. The Australian Dictionary of Biography (ADB) Online comes up with nothing on him. [23] Alfred Deakin's biography on the ODB states that he had a "near-briefless career" before switching to journalism so it doesn't seem that Deakin defended him. [24] There are severe verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:*Good point, clearly "Scott Norum" doesn't exist, but Deeming does an Deakin's ADB page mentions him and Deeming himself also has ADB page [25].Teiresias84 07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Attack page. I stand by what I wrote above but I have changed my position. While clearly this about Frederick Deeming, who needs an article, this should be deleted as it uses facts from Deeming's life to attack another person. Delete this, and we;ll start afresh with a new article for Deeming. Regards to Capitalistroadster and Canley for pointing various things out. Teiresias84 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Suburbs Rosellas

Western Suburbs Rosellas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested PROD. 'Sources needed' tag was removed at the same time. No evidence of notability. Google results are less than convincing. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) It now resembles a useful article about a notable team. My delete is withdrawn, as is the AFD. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Very little information of use to anybody who is not the team, or direct followers. And, I dont even know if they would find this useful. Let it go, let it go, let ig go. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) - Keep - lot of content added and article cleaned up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 10:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Firelement85 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Could be notable and a worthy article. This falls into the gray area the AFDs cannot handle: Could be useful, notable, good article, but without more information it's hard to determine that. If the article is expanded to include basics (where, what league, players, etc), then it could be determined worthy of keeping, but until then, not. --MECU≈talk 16:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Keep has had hall of fame members and been around for almost a century. --MECU≈talk 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - unlike the other Newcastle rugby league team recently up for deletion, which was kept because of notable former players and good referencing, this one does not have that and is lacking in information to make it notable. If some references are provided to show that it is a notable team, I'll change my vote.Keep - now with notable players and an established relationship to the Newcastle Knights referenced, it is notable and worth keeping. JROBBO 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Any club that produces 19 internationals as claimed would certainly be notable. Any club that Johnny Raper played for is certainly notable. Any club that Matthew Gidley played for as a junior is certainly notable. The Newcastle competition was the third strongest in Australia after Sydney and Brisbane and clubs who have played in it for the better part of 100 years is notable. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne Beer War

Melbourne Beer War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not only is this article is out-of-date and extremely inaccurate, but its contents have been incorporated into the articles on the particpants in the "War."

• Delete as per nom. --Stlemur 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While there are some sources for this see [26] its contents have been incorporated into other articles. A general article Beer in Australia would be good though. Capitalistroadster 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, everything relevant has been added to other articles. Lankiveil 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
• Delete--cj | talk 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand

[edit] South Otago High School

South Otago High school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nothing about this school -- including the two notable alumni listed, and the 2002 local menigococcus outbreak leading the government to vaccinate its students -- indicates that there would be non-trivial external sources that we could use to write a good article about it. Tagged for notability since June, but no one has addressed the concern. Looking through the first few dozen results of a Google search (yielding 169 unique hits altogether), I see nothing promising. Prodded and de-prodded. Pan Dan 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Trying to put this AFD together I noticed that the article I am nominating is South Otago High school, but there is also a South Otago High School about the same school. Participants in this debate will want to look at both articles. Merged. Pan Dan 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep for main article, delete the lower-case version. Secondary schools are normally considered worthy of articles.-gadfium 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That depends on the school. Looking here, I see that most recent high school article AFD's resulted in no consensus. (And one recent AFD actually resulted in delete.) But anyway, outcomes of past AFD's don't have anything to do with whether an encyclopedic article can be written about this school. Pan Dan 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's an interesting link. I believe that all normal New Zealand secondary schools are worthy of articles. I can't say that for all secondary schools around the world, because educational systems differ. I've added the word "normal" without being able to say exactly what I mean by it. However, a proposed school would not usually be worthy of an article. My reasoning stems partly from a back-of-the-envelope calculation: a school of 500 students must have an intake of at least 100 per year (probably more, because a large proportion don't stay a full five years), and when it's existed for 80 years, that's 8000 students (assuming a constant roll, which is not a very safe assumption). There are also quite a number of staff who will have worked there over the years. Many parents will also have had significant interactions with the school. Any place which has affected so many people on a daily basis seems notable. Another part of my reasoning is that school articles are often a place where Wikipedians start editing, and they then move on to more diverse articles. I've seen a number of New Zealand editors get started through their secondary school article. I realise that many editors also get started by editing articles on garage bands and that this is not a reason to keep the garage band articles, but schools invariably have official listings and websites, providing some verifiability, they are regularly reported on in local newspapers, and the articles are not (mostly) driven by vanity. It's not at all unusual for a long-standing secondary school such as this one to have a book written about their history. Such books won't be widely available outside the town that they're in, but they can be ordered through interlibrary services within the country.-gadfium 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You make some thoughtful points. The question of notability remains though -- are there external sources about this school that we could use to write a good article about it? To speculate that there may be books out there, somewhere, is not enough -- someone has to actually find those. Searches on Google books and on Amazon show nothing. Pan Dan 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable school, more notable than many that have had keep votes here in the past. Will try to expand and clean up the article when I get a little time (hopefully later today). Grutness...wha? 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hopefully I've managed to spruce it up a little... Grutness...wha? 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the article looks much better now. The question of notability remains -- I could write an equally detailed article (with pictures!) on many local businesses, using their websites as sources. But these are not good candidtates to be Wikipedia articles -- to show notability the sources have to be external. Pan Dan 14:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the opportunity in the next couple of days to get to the local public library, I'll add considerable external sources. Not all sources exist online, you know. There are a considerable number of books that I know of dealing with the area, many of which have more information on the school which - as I said earlier - is one of the most prominent schools in the region. (And before you ask, no, I'm not an ex-pupil of there: quite the opposite, SOHS were my alma mater's biggest rivals!) Grutness...wha? 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Chance of multiple independent reliable sources is high due to nature of subject. --- RockMFR 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I would think the chances of sources would be low given that this is a local high school -- most local high schools aren't the subjects of non-trivial external sources, and nothing indicates that this one is an exception. (Many high schools have famous alumni -- why would famous alumni induce external publishers to publish articles featuring the school? And the disease outbreak was really something that happened in the town, not the school.) But anyway, what's the point of talking about the chances that there's good coverage out there? To show notability someone has to actually find the sources. I looked and found none. Please do a search yourself instead of speculating. Pan Dan 14:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per RockMFR and also a general feeling pro-schools in WP --BozMo talk 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent, and because it meets my personal notiability standards for High Schools (since WP:SCHOOLS is still not a consensus standard.) — RJH (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (1) "Per precedent" is not a valid reason to keep or delete any article. (2) Even if precedent were a valid reason in general, it makes no sense for high school articles, as most AFD's on those result in no consensus, and a recent one even resulted in delete. Pan Dan 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the majority of high schools brought to AfD in the last few months have been kept, in some cases speedily. Most of the no consensuses shown at the link you give are for middle schools or lower, though i do admit there are some high schools revceiving that decision. the one deletion you mention was a special case that actually ended up being redirected and smerged into the company which ran that particular private school. I make the tally 16 keeps, 9 no consensus and two deletes in the last month and a half once middle schools and the like are removed from the count, with one of those deletes being for a nineteen-word stub. To claim that this is a case of "mostly no consensus and even deletion" is misleading, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with nom. To keep this is in effect to assert more of the highly debatable "all schools are notable" line. Eusebeus 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's more a case of "all high schools with notable alumni are notable". Grutness...wha? 05:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:SCHOOLS and has multiple notable alumni. Silensor 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep cleaned up version is good... passes WP:SCHOOL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The New Zealand Herald shows a dozen stories about the outbreak, plus a few about other, potentialy "notable," topics. I can't read more than the intros online, but locals can look them up in the library, using an aparently reliable source, and can polish up a reasonably good article, I think. "Verifiable" doesn't mean that it has to be available to us online for free. Because of its size and age, this high school has inevitably been the subject of non-trivial third-party coverage, in addition to the dozens of government reports that show up in the first few pages of a seach. There is no reason to think that it can't be expanded and improved. --Hjal 07:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Cities and towns in New Zealand rename

The discussion is here.

[edit] Elsewhere in Oceania

[edit] Jonathan Fifi'i

Jonathan Fifi'i (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This was originally deleted as a speedy under {{db-bio}}. At the time I objected to the deletion, stating

"The article makes a claim about initiating the Maasina Ruru revolution movement. I'm not 100% sure how notable that makes this guy (the article for the revolution isn't the best), however could I could have 15-20mins to see if this is correct (ie. WP:V it), and to determine how notable it is, before deleting?"

The original deleting administrator offered to undelete, however after I went digging for sources I came to the opinion that the deletion as a non-notable biography was correct. I hence withdrew my request for undeletion. Since, the article has been recreated (with slightly different content, with some more details), and I'm still not 100% convinced its' notable. Then again, the new version does assert more notability than the last. I'm gonna sit on the fence and abstain, for now. Eat your heart out :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, the article is a stub as yet and needs alot of work. Fifi'i is a very important historical figure for the Solomon Islands. Just check Google. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=jonathan+fifi%27i&btnG=Google+Search&meta= I will add more to the article when i have time but am very busy at the moment. Paki.tv 04:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, these arguments should never be the only criterion for keeping an article. There are many examples where a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee for being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment some people, events or subjects were active in the days before the internet. Google is pretty fast engine full of many indexed pages, but sometimes some subjects does not have its own page or are not cited in any. But that does not mean they are not notable. And what is on google is not automatically notable. I understand it is hard to verify it online, but this article needs some more research and sources, otherwise delete. Tulkolahten^talk 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless sourced per above. Tulkolahten^talk 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - subject was member of national parliament, and was minister in government. Eludium-q36 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article verifies the biography see [27]. It would be useful to get a copy of the autobiography translated by Roger Keesing who was a respected anthropologist. This article requires referencing by someone who has access to sources on the Solomon Islands. Google Books comes up with reliable sources that indicate notability. This entry in The Pacific Islands:an Encyclopedia confirms that he was a Minister in the Solomon Islands Government and thus worthy of an article under WP:BIO. [28]. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)