Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Oceania on Wikipedia 
Portal - Category - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of 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 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|Oceania}}<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 Oceania.

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.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page


Contents

[edit] Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates

[edit] Charlie Buckton (Home and Away)

Charlie Buckton (Home and Away) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This nomination also includes the article :Jai Fernandez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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)

[edit] David Price (Tunnel Ball)

David Price (Tunnel Ball) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An (almost) certain hoax. No sources supplied to assert any of the claims made. No evidence of the existence of tunnel ball as an international sport can be found on a quick web search, although I would be happy to be proved wrong. Mattinbgn\talk 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I was tempted to speedy delete this, but there was a sufficent claim of notability. The article does appear to either be a hoax or about a non-notable person though. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably WP:COI, created by user:Bazzajim, article states David Price (Bazzajim) implying that it is himself writing, can not even find a article on Tunnel ball and can not find any WP:RS for tunnel ball (should say references as a notable sport does not exists, tunnel ball exists [1] but does not look like a sport with a world champion ship), so should have some kind of hit in google, but I can find none, would agree with speedy. Very likely hoax. --Stefan talk 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • G3 No proof that tunnel ball is a sport, no sources, no anything. Very likely hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Likely hoax, non-notable no matter what. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, eyh, I played tunnel-ball when I was at primary school, but I find it somewhat dubious that it's played professionally. I think it's too plausible to be a G3 though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete, per above. Probable hoax, and if not, unreferenced bio of a living person. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete Sources first, notable content second, article creation third. Too many junk articles are created when these requirements are implemented in reverse order. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unsourced article about an unnotable person. Probable hoax, too. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources. Borock (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete An unreferenced article on a totally unnotable individual. Artene50 (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N: there isn't any assertion of notability, and there is a complete lack of citations. Happyme22 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barry hall every career goal

Barry hall every career goal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant to Barry Hall John Vandenberg (chat) 08:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Would be nice to say merge to Barry Hall if there were any references to back up that data given. Else delete. Pedro :  Chat  08:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic list of 2 of the 548 goals scored by Hall. Even if expanded this list does not belong, WP:IINFO Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete there are sources available[2] but its still unencyclopedic content. Gnangarra 14:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above - the article as-is is practically speedy material for lack of context. Arkyan 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\talk 03:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic and per above and nom. Timeshift (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -- Chuq (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopædic. I'd say to merge the pertinent points to Barry Hall, but it already covers his aggregate goalkicking stats there, so I don't see any need to do that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] AustNet

AustNet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article had a prod removed by an anonymous user stating if this article is deleted major policies in wikipedia would need to be changed. I fail to see the resoning behind these statements as this article fails WP:WEB assuming IRC networks fall under this. Original prod created for "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia " Also note many other IRC Networks are being proposed for deletion under notability, see IRC Network COI Virek (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"stating if this article is deleted major policies in wikipedia would need to be changed", Huh? You think by pointing out it is not very clear what Wikipedia is or isn't I am trying to hide behind a policy? WikiPolicy? WikiPolizia? I do not believe it has crossed your mind at any point to attempt to better any of the IRC Network articles you have marked prod/afd. I just noticed there may be a conflict of interest on breathing as it seems everyone editing the page is doing it, but I'm not sure where to report it! I need scissors! 61! 203.122.246.87 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable - this search brings up no reliable third party coverage. -- Mark Chovain 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable - its existence appears to be commercially motivated. Murtoa (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think it's necessarily relevant if it is commercially motivated, otherwise WP:CORP would be a hell of a lot shorter :P. Notability is the real concern here. -- Mark Chovain 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as Wikipedia continues to prove it cares little about building the sum of all human knowledge, I will be sure to expunge from my feeble mind all knowledge Wikipedia deems not noteable, rather than attempt to improve it as suggested. In just 4 days time the article will have been marked stub for 3 years. In just 4 days time the article will have existed for 3 years. Such a commercially motivated article must have made squillions in the 3 years it was neglected on this website. I just googled for AustNet and found absolutely nothing! Then I realised I suck. 203.122.246.87 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - commerciality or conflict of interest aren't the relevant points. The relevant point is notability - AustNet has not been the subject of coverage in reliable independent sources, is not groundbreaking in its field and has not won any notable awards. In the absence of an assertion of notability all that remains is a product listing, which also falls foul of WP:NOT#INTERNET. None of this is to suggest that Austnet is not important or a worthwhile service - only that Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, has specific policies determining what is and is not included and this article doesn't meet them. You mention that the article could be improved rather than deleted. If you have sourced material that could improve the article by both asserting notability and referencing it, go right ahead before this AfD closes and chances are it will be saved. Euryalus (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - out of all these, I used to use AustNet most back in the IRC heyday! I can't believe people want to delete this one, maybe those people never used it? It was certainly well known at the time with thousands of users for half a decade or so, and is still used today AFAIK, albiet less. I'm past IRC (don't even go there) and haven't been on in ages but from a historical IRC perspective, that template wouldn't be complete without AustNet. Timeshift (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student Life (university ministry)

Student Life (university ministry) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indications of notability apparent Richard001 (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment if kept it should be renamed, as it is exceedingly generically named. 70.51.11.115 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • To what? I don't mind keeping it if someone can show that it is somehow notable, but I haven't been able to find any reliable sources that mention it. Richard001 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • That is why the article has the disambiguator, "university ministry", I expect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep --I had not heard that Campus Crusade for Christ had reorganised and renamed its university ministry, but CCC is (or at least was) an important Christian Ministry (of American origin) and I have no reason to believe that Student life is not also notable. The article claims that it operates in various univerities. This means that it is much more than a student club, of the kind that is too often deleted. I am in England and cannot vouch for the veracity of the article. Oppose renaming, since the name used appears to be that under which it operates. The disambiguator should be retained, becasue it might refer to other things. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The Campus Crusade for Christ seems to have a few news hits in Australia, so Campus Crusade for Christ (Australia) would be notable I would think. If this organization is the same one but renamed, then I would think the notability follows. Kevin (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Campus Crusade for Christ. It's the same organization, it just uses a different name in Australia/New Zealand. The CCC article even has a section for "Around the world" which currently just has a long list of links. The content could easily be merged there and encourage expansion of that section to more than just a directory. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Given the lack of material for writing an article (not a single source mentioning Student Life has been provided) I would support merging it into a section of the (also small) article Campus Crusade for Christ. If it is kept I think it needs to be trimmed down because there is a lot of crufty material of anon/one edit wonder origin in there (much of it from a merge from Student Life Australia. Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Peterkingiron. SL is definitely notable as a student organisation in Australia and is notable in more than one location. JRG (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Richard001. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Campus Crusade for Christ, as this is essentially just a local branch of that organisation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:11, 8 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


[edit] New Zealand

[edit] Dominic Hoey

Dominic Hoey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

insufficient notability; references do not meet WP:BIO - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 23:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. There's a meta-question in play: is publication in Landfall sufficient to qualify for notability? If yes, then Hoey is notable; if no, then he isn't. It's too early for me to opine on that right now. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply. I'm having trouble even finding this guy's name somewhere in this publication. I scrolled around, tried a trext string earch on the web page, but haven't yet found him... Besides, I don't know that the one mention is enough for WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
One mention in one notable publication is not wide, independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that he's listed in the web page as "Tourettes", the pseudonym mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hardly a notable mention, then; no one could tell who that is unless they already know teh guy AND know he's been published. How else can we tell if he's notable enough? (I'm at home on idal-up, so searching further is taking FOREVER.) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. In searching, I found his Bebo page. I'm going to say that publication in Landfall is enough of an assertion of notability that the article is immune to speedy deletion. However, I don't see enough out there to get him to meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There isn't enough to evidence that the subject is notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As above, one publication in one literary journal doesn't really meet what we would seem to require; a lack of outside coverage makes notability very scarce. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, that his name doesn't appear in the references makes them useless as any indication of notability.-gadfium 06:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Couper

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Matt Couper
 Articles for deletion/Matt Couper (2nd nomination)
Matt Couper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

conflict of interest: article created by subject, self-promotional, dubious notability Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless "presented in major collections throughout New Zealand" can be referenced, and includes public collections as per WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability seems marginal at best, no sources other than the artist's own website, and autobiography.-gadfium 22:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. All I can find are some group exhibitions [3], [4] and a $250 prize [5]. Not notable yet.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NN & WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This 4 year old article fails WP:BIO and independent WP:RS and was likely made by the subject of the article himself here Artene50 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Slightly stronger than weak delete. Although WP:UNKNOWNHERE and its corollary are lousy arguments for AfD, I'd have to say that, having worked in the New Zealand art scene for many years as a reviewer and artist, I have heard of him, though not very much. I know he's exhibited at the Sarjeant in Wanganui, though, which is one of the country's better know provincial galleries. Whether it's enough to meet notability standards here, though, I doubt. And I can't find much evidence of his work being in major collections nationwide. BTW, "Matt couper" +art -wikipedia returns some 650 ghits. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't find any reliable sources for this article. Soxred 93 03:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no claim of notability. An artist is expected to have some semi-notable art. --T-rex 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't turn up any substantial news references to this fellow, and being in collections doesn't really prove notability to my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Out Of Kilter Scandal

Out Of Kilter Scandal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article with a one-sided point of view that falls just short of attack, containing a number of unsourced statements which violate WP:BLP, and which covers a three-day old news story which hasn't spread beyond New Zealand. Neither the phrase "out of Kilter scandal" nor "Macleangate" appear anywhere searchable other than this article. (I expect they may occur in the members-only web forum in question). Google news has a total of seven hits, being one or two stories in three of NZ's metropolitan daily newspapers, one radio story and one television news story (of three significant news channels which might have covered it). Two of the four references are from the forum itself and are currently returning 404 errors, and the external link requires forum membership. Let's face it, this is a storm in a teacup, and I have a strong suspicion that one or both of the main contributors has a Conflict of Interest. If there is significant/ongoing coverage in six months time, then it might be worth an article, but not now. dramatic (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


From a historical perspective yes, this story is little more than a storm in a teacup but with regard to the censoring actions of Maclean, and censorship in the New Zealand media in general, this is a highly important cybertext. I have a suspicion that this is only the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.232.78 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then once a couple of reliable sources (say The Listener and North and South have done in-depth articles analysing that, we can report on it. Until then, any discussion of censorship is Original research rather than verifiable fact and it ain't allowed in this encyclopedia. dramatic (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Your argument is understood & in appreciation of your seeming role here as content moderator but are you not merely being overzealous ? The content in this document is factual and confirmed as so. These matters have to be covered in YOUR choice of media too? In what sense are you qualified to make these calls please ? Maybe the music industry and those who are involved should be those best qualified to understand and report upon this matter; surely. We are definitely open though to discussion and debate / hearing further guidelines for information improvement nonetheless.

[edit] Categories

[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

[edit] Elsewhere in Oceania

[edit] Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving