Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.
You can help maintain the list on this page:
- To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
-
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You can also tag the AfD by adding
- {{subst:delsort|Australia}}<small>—~~~~</small>
- to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Australia.
Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania
Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia/archive.| Purge page cache | Watch this page |
Contents |
[edit] Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates
[edit] Chillay Productions
The only assertion of notability seems to be removal of two videos from YouTube. 9Nak (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete These kids need to be knee-deep in an ELA class studying spelling and grammar, rather than playing video games or monkeying about with the encyclopedia. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable group Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable subject, no NPOV because author admires them and created page only for that reason (see rev) Shoombooly (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There are 96 Google hits here but they come either from the company itself, blog sites or youtub. Doesn't seem very notable at present. Artene50 (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of notability Nick Dowling (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable company at this time. Article not warranted. --VS talk 11:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Johnny Gamble
Non-notable software developer/blogger. There is a lack of reliable sources to support the assertions made in the article. Mattinbgn\talk 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This is a disputed PROD. Some reasoning is supllied on the talk page. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Probably could have been speedied as a non-notable website founder. As it stands, article is unsourced, fansite material. TN‑X-Man 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Notability requirements are not met, also concur with Tnxman's view.--VS talk 22:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree... sources were added. As this is a blogger no academic sources have been quoted; instead other independent sites have been quoted, all of which give the blogger and his efforts decent reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondelion (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- The sources were the subject's own website mentioned in the article. None of the sources added are either independent of the subject or have any sort of fact checking, both of which are required per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Try again. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The sources in this article are either secondary or from the subject's own website. He lacks WP:N as of June 2008--no independent major references. Artene50 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, would not appear to meet the notability criteria for biographies at this time; no secondary sources to vouch for the notability of this person. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Not Happy, John
No viable assertion of notability for this book. As for saying it "inspired the 'Not happy John!' campaign, I suspect it is more likely to have been the other way around. I'm am dubious over that claim and would need to see some evidence. Moondyne 09:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Moondyne 09:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Moondyne that there is little if any assertion of sufficient notability. The claim that 'Not happy John!' campaign comes from this book is dubious at best. giggy (:O) 09:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Margo Kingston. I think that the book did come before the campaign, but don't see how it meets WP:BK. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I seem to recall this book attracting plenty of attention on its own basis along with the campaign as a whole. A quick search of the web, however does not turn up much in the way of RS (as opposed to blogs etc.). Perhaps others will find more and I will hold off on an opinion one way or the other until then. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps I'm wrong. this implies it was the Not happy, Jan! commercial first, the book second and the campaign third. Who to believe? Moondyne 10:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The book was launched by Tony Fitzgerald QC, some of whose comments at the launch were published by The Age, it was reviewed by the Journal of Australian Studies (reprinted by API, here) and by Quadrant magazine (and very likely by all the major Australian newspapers at the time, here's just one review I found in the Sydney Morning Herald), and it also became the inspiration for a significant political campaign, as evidenced here. So I don't think there can be any doubt about notability. Gatoclass (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Gatoclass above. Book has been reviewed and discussed at length in Australian newspapers, thus both WP:V and WP:N are met. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
- Keep - the book is notable, inspiring the campaign and the first signs of anti-Howard resentment from the 2004 election (particularly in his own electorate). JRG (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - as per Gatoclass the book meets Wikipedia:Notability (books) as it meets criterion 1: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.--Matilda talk 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Charlie Buckton (Home and Away)
This nomination also includes the article :
This has gone to an Afd discussion as the Proposal to delete Charlie Buckton was objected to. The reason the PROD was opposed was due to the fact that WP:FICT is a proposal and not a guideline. Fair enough, but this proposal is based on several already standing guidelines which should be analyzed when deciding what to do with this article.
Before i go through the reasons why this article should be deleted. It should be noted that it was decided to delete several articles recently based on the notability arguments i present here. Each case is individual however it may be good to look at. The discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Harris
WP:N states that a subject is considered notable, if it has recicved significant real world coverage. I did a google search and the only remotley notable thing i found was a newspaper photo gallery, with the character and it was only included because the actress is notable. Remember this is an article about the character.
WP:WAF states 'When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline and the more specific notability guideline for fiction-related subjects by including independent reliable secondary sources.'
My point is that these two characters do not meet notability guidelines and as a result an article is not warranted. When more information is avaliable regarding this character it should be included in List of current Home and Away characters. It should be noted that very few of the Home and Away characters have their own articles and the only characters that have thier own articles are those that are considered notable and have been on the show for several years, including Alf Stewart and Irene Roberts. (There are others because i havn't got around to merging them into the list article, its the middle of exams for me, but ill get around to it in the holidays. ) Printer222 (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Natural, my understanding is that the character is new so at this point she is not notable. I object to many of the recent decisions to delete Soap Characters as a lot seem to be based on WP:Fict. I also believe that many of these articles can be written with sources that show they've been in notable storylines. It's more of a case of finding them. I also believe strongly that the guideline WP:Notable makes it far too difficult for fictional characters to actually be notable and that people are wrongly taking it as a policy. My belief is that if the soap character has 1) been in notable storylines 2) has had an influence on outcome of the show for the shows season or a period of time and 3) the article is well sourced then they should always be kept. However, this seems to fail on all three of these accounts. However, I am unable to judge as I am not familiar with the goings on in the soap it belongs to. Englishrose (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, or merge to List of current Home and Away characters if this is a notable character in the series. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both per previous discussion, WP:FICTION and WP:RECENTISM. Moreover, any of these characters has media coverage. We have to extend the cleanup and better organise WP:SOAPS to avoid the creation of these articles in the future. Minor characters can be added in Lists of characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to List of current Home and Away characters - character does not have wide notability at the moment, but given that there is a merge target it might as well be sent there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Australia-related Miscellany for deletion
The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:
- None at present
[edit] Australia-related Templates for Deletion
The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:
- None at present
[edit] Australia-related Categories for Discussion
The following Australian-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:
[edit] Australia-related Deletion Review
The following Australian-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:
- None at present
