Points of interest related to Oceania on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

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. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Oceania|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Oceania.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Australia-related Articles for Deletion debates[edit]

M.J. Bale

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It appears to be a non-notable fashion store with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently cited sources are either passing mentions, press releases, or paid brand posts. It fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Konhume (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mooks clothing company

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Non-notable Streetwear clothing company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently cited sources are just passing mentions no indepth coverage. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH Konhume (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountcastle & Sons

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Only company website sources. Konhume (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean & Earth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The currently cited sources are company website and company profile on Surfd. Fail WP:ORG Konhume (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VonZipper

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It appears to be a non-notable eyewear company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently 2 cited sources are either passing mentions, or press releases. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH Konhume (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best I can find are PR-ish product reviews, written by the editors of whatever news outlet it is... [1] this is the best that came up, and it's promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryderwear

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company with routine paid posts, poor sourcing. SmartCompany articles posted somewhere else then resposted. Forbes Former contributor article (non-WP:RS), others are press releases. Konhume (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FUCM

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find any coverage and the article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. The article was created by User:Bamatfucm, and one of the founders of FUCM is Bam. toweli (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Australia. toweli (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I can't believe that an article with poor sources and no inline citations has lasted this long for over 16 years. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only published independent sources I could find were: [2][3] [4], which don't establish notability.

Traumnovelle (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of leaders of UNSW student organisations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:GNG. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Education, and Lists. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, BEFORE does not show any possibility of content being suitable for inclusion elsewhere. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Rochecouste

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of The 3 sources are primary. A Google News search yielded nothing in-depth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Portugal, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable like the other article. Fails WP:BIO too. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Craven

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is more about the companies he founded which already have their own articles. His life doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes the article needs to be rewritten but the subject still meets GNG ([5][6][7][8][9]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it has been repeatedly confirmed at DRV sources presented during an afd should be ignored and this article should be purely judged on it's current state and should be deleted, unless of course the closing admin chooses to guess what a select few voters just might have possibly been thinking then they can choose to supervote based on their imagination. Don't bother making an effort. Your sources will be ignored. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Filipetto

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The 2 sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. If there were more sources then it would've been fine. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackay Radio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. The link http://www.mackayhistory.com/ doesn’t exist anymore. Wikilover3509 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original editor was blocked with a mile-long talk page of warnings; this seems to be an article about stations in Mackay, Queensland, but this article seems to have been both pay-to-play from a sockmaster who never visited Australia, and completely unintelligible (it previously also had a duplicative entry about Clarence Mackay). No redirect. Nate • (chatter) 17:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not entirely sure whether this article, such as it is, is about an American company or about Australian radio stations… and I'm not sure the article knows either. This has been tagged as a potential WP:CORP failure since July 2021 (only a month after creation); if there is any solution to this that doesn't involve deletion, I'm not seeing it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links (it took me a while to catch that, despite my earlier comment here). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without even going into suspect bona fides of the page’s author, and putting best spin on page’s intent, which is to serve as a list of Mackay Radio stations, then still fails WP:STANDALONE. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charli Evans

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT. No reliable sources in the article or online. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found about this person, sourcing is largely match reports in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (Keep) She is one of the most popular active female Australian wrestlers and a pioneer of Pro-Wrestling: EVE. Has worked for companies from three different continents and is accomplished. As for the sourcing, the article includes links to trustworthy sites such as fightful.com, voicesofwrestling.com, Squared Circle Sirens, Diva Dirt or Last Word on Pro Wrestling. They might not point her name out, but they clearly demonstrate her work. There also exist several interviews with her from YahooSports and WrestleSports. Unfortunately I didn't include them since they are only audio work. I think the article meets the notability criterias and also has a WikiData correspondent (item Q126186302), therefore I strongly believe that it should remain on the mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyReydar97 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Charli Evans is a major figure in the UK indie wrestling scene. Bigkhrisdogg (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources that contribute towards establishing notability? - GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are results only and the others are trivia mentions only. One source is unreliable and I'll be removing it. Clearly not notable and not a major figure in UK wrestling by default for said lack of notability. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fight promotions and results, interviews, and wrestling databases do not constitute significant independent coverage. Being "popular" is also not a WP notability criteria. According to WP:NSPORT, pro wrestling is not classified as a sport here, but rather as entertainment, so wrestling records and titles are immaterial. WP:ENTERTAINER says notability is achieved if "The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." There is no evidence that she meets this criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Polly

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested G11. This appears to have been written by a UPE and reads like an advertisement. All of the coverage I can find is run of the mill. Even if notable, G11 is appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Australia, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various blogs or reports of a store opening are all I can see for coverage. The Forbes source used is a contributor, so non-reliable. I don't find any coverage we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like ad. The best I could find is Fashionunited: https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/princess-polly-partners-with-true-fit-for-size-and-fit-recommendations/2024031174529 which talks about the brand's partnership with AI platform True Fit, which fails GNG. Forbes here is just a contributor work by Mark Faithfull which has minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable as it was not written by the Forbes Staff, See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes.com contributors about Forbes' contributor work.- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's the only way to be sure. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voorts. Irredeemable. JSFarman (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure the brand will meet N eventually, but certainly not with convoluted ad copy like '(the) brand is recognized as the sixth favorite shopping website for upper-income teens in the United States, according to the Piper Sandler Taking Stock With Teens 2023 survey'...that's some stretching that'll break an ankle. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reviewed and accepted this draft in AfC as I felt that the company itself met WP:NCORP and was able to find suitable coverage online. Not going to vote formally as I already had a chance to review the article but several voters are claiming there's not enough sources that can be used to establish notability when I found multiple: Business Insider Sydney Morning Herald Australian Financial Review ~Liance^talk 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of those, I think only the BI story provides significant coverage. The SMH story is a run-of-the-mill announcement about the parent company's IPO, with a brief mention about this brand, and the AFR story is a one sentence announcement. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of notable references to this company that could be included in this page as it meets the WP:NCORP. Including the sources noted by Liance, Ragtrader which speaks to both positive and negative market fluctuations of the parent company, IT News discussing a data breach, and BBC article with Lori Loughlin scandal. Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikiguru777 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragtrader has no clear editorial policy, the article you've cited is run-of-the-mill reporting about stores opening, and trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP. IT News is likewise a run-of-the-mill data breach story in a trade publication, and does not establish that the company is notable. The BBC article contains only this brief mention of the brand: "The social media influencer has launched a clothing collection with women's online fashion boutique Princess Polly and a make-up palette with cosmetics chain Sephora." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

plenty of notable references to this company: for a company to be notable under NCORP, there needs to be more than "references"; there needs to be several sources, each of which must be secondary, independent, and reliable, and contain significant coverage of the company.

Regarding: Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikipedia's readers are not an audience for advertising to. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP" I can see that featured trade stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear. Reporting on net revenue decrease and factual store openings is unbiased, independent information. Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article.

In addition, I've also found the BBB review / complaints for the company (where reviews must be independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject).

Another article with substantial, reliable, and independent coverage from a secondary source relating to news article exploring sustainability of the company - Greenmatters - https://www.greenmatters.com/p/is-princess-polly-good-quality

Agree that the BBC article I previously referenced does not meet the criteria for notable source. Wikiguru777 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBB complaints are user-generated content and thus not reliable.
Greenmatters appears to be reliable and its critique of the company's claims of being ethical while sourcing from "countries with extreme risk of label abuse" indicates this definitely isn't a sponsored post.
Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article. References or mentions are not enough to establish notability. The article also isn't about this company; it's about the parent company's IPO.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed significant, reliable, independent sources

Business insider

Green matters

I believe IT news should also be considered a source as it is “featured trade stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear.”

I’ve also found Goon On You which questions Princess Polly’s ethical standards. This source is reliable & independent

The above is enough to satisfy NCORP as “significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”

This is my first publishing so I'm learning more about the rules here and I appreciate your previous feedback to help discern what is appropriate. I believe the above should be suitable to comply with NCORP. Wikiguru777 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IT News is not a "leading trade magazine" in fashion. It's a run-of-the-mill news story that focuses on the data breach, not significant coverage about the company itself. Greenmatters is basically secondary source coverage of Good on You, which is a primary source since it's a report made by an advocacy group. So, we still only have two sources that meet WP:SIRS, Green Matters and BI, which isn't enough under NCORP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree BI is ok though I'm not so sure Green Matters is sufficient for ORGDEPTH. IT news would also fail ORGIND given its like, 90% quotes from the company, and does not appear to have any secondary analysis, very far from being a featured story, so I'd agree there also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Carlton Crew

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:V - Verifiability: This article contains almost no sourcing. Information present is unreliable and a lot of it seems to have been added in contravention of WP:NOR. Has been this way for 14 odd years judging by the article.

WP:ORG - Notability: The article does not meet the Notability guidelines for criminal organisations due to insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources.

Overall almost none of the information in this article is verifiable, and that is which is verifiable is not notable enough to warrant an article. I considered removing the unverified content, but that which would remain does not seem substantive enough. Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, and Australia. Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:BEFORE. Plenty of sources exist online that establish notability. I will work on improving the article in the coming days. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. There seem to be plenty of sources on this group. That they aren't in the page is unrelated to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heaps of sources. Happy to wait for GMH Melbourne to improve. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faaimata Hiliau

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately I don't see how this meets WP:BASIC. The only independent article that offers WP:SIGCOV is this one by The Sydney Morning Herald. The two ([10] [11]) magazine articles by the Uniting Church are not independent and don't count towards notability. C F A 💬 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC (and even WP:GNG if you count the Compass documentary in addition to The Sydney Morning Herald feature article mentioned above). Added two articles from The South Sydney Herald about recent activity related to climate change which Hiliau has been involved in (speaking at Pasifika community gathering and formal visit to government ministers and MPs in Canberra), as well as an external link to the ABC TV Compass documentary about Hiliau and the future of the United Church, with a viewership of 166,000 in August 2023 per MediaWeek. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per GNG. There were already 2 independent sources with SMH and compass, and Cielquiparle has added 2 more.

Newystats (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She seems to be notable but the references am not sure could have given her a keep.--Meligirl5 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a hugely important non-Anglo female faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. SproulesLane (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together with the references in the article shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko Gear

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest? B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing has changed since last AfD. The current sources are enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?
We already have three sources that pass NCORP. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it fails ORGIND... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably spent way too much time on this, but whatever. Not sure what the third source that passed NCORP was. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
"Macworld Australia Staff" (20 October 2010). "Australian iPod, iPad and iPhone accessory maker Gecko Gear announces attendance at CES 2011". Macworld Australia. Archived from the original on 2018-04-17.	This is a press release. Two ways to tell. Well, three if we count the fact that it's obviously a press release from the content.	– Not really applicable	–
Barker, Garry (8 June 2011). "What's the best case scenario?". Brisbane Times. Also found in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (PQ 870699777 TWL link, can't find a FUTON copy)		–	Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make.
Foo, Fran (14 August 2010). "Gecko Gear makes the case for quality iPhone accessories". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2010-11-24.	Pretty much entirely quotes. Probably should be analysed under TRADES tbh.	–	– At least it's actually vaguely about the subject?
Barker, Gary (29 January 2007). "Lifestyle accessories turn the world into iPod's oyster". The Age.	–	–	Besides being a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating?	–
Barker, Gary (28 Apr 2011) "Shape of Apples to come: mac man" The Age PQ 865591170 TWL	–	–	There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company)	–

I think that's about it, unless someone wants to start digging through the dead tree copies of the Australian MacWorld and stuff. I don't see the point frankly, I find it extremely unlikely there exists anything meeting ORGCRIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors wanting to Keep this article should try to rebut the source analysis presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change my !vote to neutral. I'm not entirely convinced that Barker and Foo don't demonstrate original opinion, but it is indeed too little. Both only count partially, so that isn't a good case for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put two additional arguments to you. First, the topic of this article is the *company* but the Barker article is about the Ipad2 cover and based entirely on an interview with the founder. Second, references don't count "partially" - we don't aggregate 10 (or whatever number you choose) sources that fail NCORP and determine that there's "enough" therefore to meet the criteria for establishing notability - see WP:SIRS which governs how to evaluate each source and says each individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that the SIGCOV part is extremely shaky, so it counts partially. If it fails IND, then it's just a fail. Barker has a paragraph of individual analysis, but that is indeed just a single, tiny paragraph that happens to not be a trivial mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but just FYI, that's not how to apply the criteria. It is a binary yes/no pass/fail decision. There's no such thing as counting "partially". A "single tiny paragraph" from one reference fails and does not count towards establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. If technically meets SIGCOV but is nowhere near supporting notability. That's what I mean by barely partially. If we had a source that had two, longer paragraphs about the company itself that can't count as one as its own, I think we can combine it with a similar (but different, ofc) source to count as 1 source unit for notability, while my minimum is 2 source units. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to the criteria for establishing notability than SIGCOV but to answer your thought on whether you can combine sources to count a 1 source unit, at least for companies/organizations, no we cannot. I've pointed you to WP:SIRS above which clarifies that each individual source must meet all the criteria. Hope that helps, sorry if I'm only confusing matters further for you. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the chart shows, none of the sources are useful for notability in 2024... Beyond mentions of hte company, I still don't see extensive sourcing we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources cover the police investigating him. That is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [12] and [13] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person Md Joni Hossain (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Adamson

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Cambodia, Pakistan, Poland, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was very stub-y so I did some work filling it out using the references that were there. Someone with better access to Australian sources can probably improve this even more. Lamona (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A high office multiple diplomat professionally is notable. I disagree this doesn't meets WP:GNG as the nominator said. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Burke (musician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(PROD declined with no explanation) Fails WP:MUSICBIO. What little coverage I can find featuring this person's name is about his bands, not Burke himself Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Mach61 14:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page we should keep given that the musician written about has a long-term and ongoing authentic discography as cited on reliable archival / data sites such as Discogs with news features on various media outlets. If for some reason it is a problem for the information to be listed under “Rick Burke (musician)”, I would strongly recommend that rather than deleting the article on superfluous grounds, the content should be split into 2 pages: one for “Comacozer” and one for “Tropical Sludge” with a redirect from the original “Rick Burke (musician)” page. In saying that, it does not make sense to split the information into several pages therefore it should be retained as one to keep the information tidy on Wikipedia. NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NEXUS6N6MAA10816 Having a long-term and ongoing authentic discography does not count towards inclusion in Wikipedia. With regard to your suggestion the article be split, there is not enough content about those bands for one to be viable. Mach61 16:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mach61, thanks for your kind suggestions. The article is important as it streamlines information on Rick Burke which people actively search for on the internet within the context of "Underground Music" (see Wiki entry for this) and fits into the scope of "WikiProject Music". Associated acts such as Kikagaku Moyo, Electric Wizard, It's Psychedelic Baby and so on have existing entries on Wikipedia and this article will complete a missing part of that academic puzzle as it increasingly gets fleshed out as a public document. Best wishes. NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NEXUS6N6MAA10816 I see no indication Burke is connected to any of those people, and even if he were that would be irrelevant (see WP:notability is not inherited. Mach61 15:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. If the band is notable, there can be option for redirecting/merging by "hell no!", it isn't either. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Tasmanian state election

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?

Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Every other state/territory had their "next election" page created shortly after the last, however agree with @AveryTheComrade it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPath^talk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tasmaina only had an election 2 months ago. Significant coverage of the next election is years away. Similar AfDs of premature election coverage has appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is ridiculously WP:TOOSOON. The last election has only just happened and this is almost four years off. TarnishedPath^talk 08:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The next election is not set in stone at 4 years away as the Tas Parliament states Term: the length of time House of Assembly elections - since 1976 this has been a maximum of four years. and that's why I do agree with previous comments that it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election instead. It should be noted that both previous elections went early at about 3 years each 2018 Tasmanian state election and 2021 Tasmanian state election. And with a hung parliament as described in the article that potential is high again. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Next Tasmanian state election. The next election in a democratic state is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I also agree with the rational of the other comments supporting a keep position. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Enos733. Next elections are almost always notable and this doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL: only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm still failing to see a single reliable secondary source in the article which talks about the 2028 election. How can anyone possibly argue that this passes WP:GNG without appropriate sourcing? TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election. AveryTheComrade (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely zero coverage in secondary sources. How much more WP:TOOSOON can you get than that? Even if it were to be renamed to Next Tasmanian state election the same statement holds. At best this should be draftify but I don't really see that as much of an alternative to deletion given how far out the election is. TarnishedPath^talk 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete After some due research within the scope of the Australian Open, I have come to the conclusion that as a list, the topic fails WP:LISTN, but as a prose, it has more potential as its own article. If the closer determines that, then I would suggest that we consider moving this article to just be History of Australian Open broadcasts, remove the WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR, and keep the sources that actually commit notability to this topic. Conyo14 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very little original research in this article. Finals commentators can be known by watching the matches. YouTube videos could be used as sources for this (including from official channels). It is of interest to some to know the finals commentators.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watching the match then placing down what you saw is WP:OR. YouTube is considered WP:TERTIARY due to its unreliability. Conyo14 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission." More and more videos from long ago are being published on YouTube from official tennis sources, particularly the Australian Open (they are currently undertaking a project uploading a lot of their archive from 1975 onwards). A very good source of who is commentating on a match is the match itself provided by the tournament itself (just about as reliable as it can possibly be). And wikipedia policy seems to agree with that. The No original research policy states "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research."Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: some of her roles in notable productions seem significant enough, so that she meets WP:NACTOR imv and deletion is not necessary. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, In which shows, if I may ask? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]

It's not a matter of whether I like a source or not. It's obvious that the sources are clearly not reliable, no even for WP:V purpose. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In looking at the original article and the SPA creation & editing of this article, as well as other articles that mention the subject, it is likely this is an autobiography. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I am 100% certain that this is not an autobiography. Even if it were, that is not necessarily a valid deletion rationale. UPE might be an issue though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trentham Football Netball Club

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source in article and BEFORE are database records, game recaps, routine local mill news, and name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if indepth sources addressing the subject directly meeting WP:SIRS are found. // Timothy :: talk 17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, here is a link to the official history book of the Australian Rules football club, Trentham Football / Netball Club in Victoria, Australia - https://trenthamsaintsfnc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/TDFNC-The-First-100-Years-by-Vin-Cowell.pdf which should provide you with a good source for you add in any other citations for verification, addressing your concerns. Thanks, Justin. Justin J. Kelly (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are mainly local, same with a google news search, needs wider coverage as per WP:AUD. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @LibStar: What's wrong with the book-length source on its history listed above? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  As far as I can tell it is self-published by a relative of a former player? Not sure if it qualifies for meeting the WP:ORG. Let'srun (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League. I agree with LetsRun’s characterization of the earlier source brought up. It lacks independence and even if it was independent, it wouldn’t be enough on its own (plus the WP:ROUTINE local coverage currently in the article). Frank Anchor 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A decent article here on "Trentham's Glory Years". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting a link to that great article about the Trentham FNC to help try and maintain some of the club's valuable football and netball history. Justin J. Kelly (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if some consensus on an outcome can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League as an AtD. I'm likewise not impressed with the applied, presented or found sourcing, none of which meets RS. Redirect protects full page history. Some of these articles are insufficiently sourced to avoid deletion process tests. BusterD (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BusterD: What's wrong with this source? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would classify it as "small beer." It's difficult for me to take seriously an interview with a "legendary" somebody who recalls successfully playing minor league football in a small Victoria town sixty years ago (a "legendary" but non-notable figure in a village of almost 1,200 dwellers!), I see nothing which demonstrates this team any more notable than any of the other entries on the league article which don't have pages about them. I see nothing significant and independent which actually shows the club exists as of this datestamp. If I stipulate the team exists, I'm forced to add there's not enough direct detailing to make this team meet WP:NTEAM (these days GNG) to rate an article on English Wikipedia. Not all local amateur sports teams are notable. The BURDEN is on those asserting keep. I assert page supporters haven't met their burden. I am arguing for a redirect outcome so that when sufficient sources ARE found, page supporters can just improve the page without hassle. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations[edit]

The following Australian-related articles are currently Proposed for Deletion:

Australia-related Miscellany for deletion[edit]

The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

Australia-related Templates for Deletion[edit]

The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present

Australia-related Categories for Discussion[edit]

The following Australian-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_9#Category:Extinct_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia

Australia-related Deletion Review[edit]

The following Australian-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:

None at present

Shortcut

WP:AFD/NZ

New Zealand[edit]

New Zealand Comic con

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is substantially covered in a subsection of Armageddon Expo, which this article links to in the lede. An uninformed reader may draw the conclusion that this is the article about Armageddon, which it is not. Removing the non-encyclopedic parts of this article would render it a copy of the Armageddon subsection.

This article was nominated for PROD previously but had as far as I can tell only little opposition; the reason was that it was a unique event. MrSeabody (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Popular culture. MrSeabody (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May Gilbert

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:ARTIST. Only 1 article links to this. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no reliable sources and is essentially an orphan with no article linking to it. This evidence suggests the article does not fall on the notability side. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otago NORML

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are either regional publication (mainly the Otago Daily Times), university newspapers (Critic Te Arohi) and primary-sourced YouTube video. I only see two national sources. The first I can't access, and the second is a mention of a cannabis museum but does not go into detail. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd give the ODT more credit than being a regional publication; it's the major newspaper covering Otago. Yes, that is a region, but you could also argue the same for The Press in Christchurch, and I would also disagree with that thinking. The sustained ODT coverage brings this over the general notability line for me. Schwede 66 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the ODT and One News coverage clearly establishes notability imo. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are not 'more' sources available, but the existing ones establish the subject's notability. For example, the Critic here, establish GNG. Others include Otago Times here among others. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Critic Te Ārohi established notability as it is a student newspaper of Otago University. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSSM applies here: given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions — HTGS (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed with comments above. ODT establishes notability. Student newspapers are prone to inaccuracy and errors but I suppose they might be used in this context. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to NORML New Zealand) as lacking significant non-trivial coverage. I don’t think the ODT is an unreliable source, nor do I think regional papers should be looked down on (technically all of NZ’s printed newspapers are regional), but most of the “coverage” in the article is very sparse, and neither the ODT nor the One News sources represent non-trivial coverage of the org itself, so much as coverage of various events and people where the org was mentioned (per WP:SIGCOV example on Clinton’s high school band). I have the impression the org is currently defunct or inactive. Thanks Panamitsu, I have been meaning to nominate this article for a while. — HTGS (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the discussion of Otago Daily Times is relevant; WP:BRANCH is extremely clear that "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Every source in this article, and every source I could find in a BEFORE search, is either local to the Dunedin area or to the university itself. (The only non-local source is really about Abe Gray and a museum, not sigcov of Otago NORML.) I would encourage other editors and participants here to engage with the WP:BRANCH criteria here, since WP:ORGCRIT establishes a higher standard than WP:GNG for organizations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per above Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Labrum

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does she meet WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Harris (artist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable artist. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not think any of the sources establish notability per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only independent coverage is trivial. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Holloway-Smith

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to lack of secondary sourcing. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the sources do not establish notability as per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs some work but the subject is definitely notable. TheSwamphen (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the subject meets notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through all of the sources, and don't see how this could meet WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Independent sigcov from 2018 in RNZ, Stuff. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage mentioned by Hameltion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keepa Mewett

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's this and a fair few other bits on his rugby career, and then a fair bit also on his post-rugby career. Worth a weak keep in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I was initially leaning toward a delete some research shows the BoP Times profile, and other articles about being selected to play internationally as part of the Māori All Blacks. Its thin but I think it is enough. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He captained the Bay of Plenty side and played for the Māori All Blacks. As well as the Bay of Plenty Times profile, there is this profile from the Manawatu Standard during his stint playing for Manawatū, and this podcast that profiles his life journey. Paora (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. I will insist the sources per se be incorporated into the article. All the best. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories / Templates / etc

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Pekatahi (via WP:PROD on 5 February 2024)
Raes Junction (via WP:PROD on 4 February 2024)

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.

A list of prodded articles with ((WikiProject New Zealand)) tags can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts#Alerts.

Elsewhere in Oceania[edit]

Soane Asi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find references on Google. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTBASIC Shinadamina (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only reliable information for him is on this ESPN page, that provides a mediocre amount of information. Other than that I couldn't find any reliable sources on him. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found some more information KoreanDragon (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ESPN is about the extent of coverage. Some unrelated linkedin posts, nothing else for notability I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Linkedin profile stated that it was him, as seen in the info.

"My name is Soane Asi being working as Lab Technician for Winstone for 23 years migrates from the Kingdom of Tonga 1987 after the very first Rugby World Cup where I represent Tonga I play as an Utility Backs from 2nd Five eight to Full Back but I play my first game on wing against Canada.

Back Home I work for the ministry of Works as a Technical Officers for 8 years. Graduate with a Civil Engineering Diploma on Road Constructions 2 years Study on Ministry of Works Courses." KoreanDragon (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players Some sourcing exists, but difficult to judge whether it would pass WP:GNG with offline coverage, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/weak keep There's coverage of his World Cup appearances, and his post playing career in law. I think there's enough here for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22 The coverage I see are stats pages and mentions. I do not see any in-depth coverage on the individual which is needed to show notability. If you see such coverage, please post the links. Shinadamina (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a good dig and didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. I have a feeling given his post-rugby career in law and Tongan politics there might be good sources in the Tongan language, but I wasn't able to unearth any. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is credible a good impact of this article. Though it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and the sources were few of database results. I am quite certain that the article individual exists and has been covered in little coverage this, and others. A redirect/draftify should work better here against deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as his rugby playing career, which included playing in all four of Tonga's matches at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, he became a prominent lawyer in Tonga, serving as president of the Tongan Law Society and as a member of the 2009 Tongan Constitutional and Electoral Commission. He was a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa (Sustainable Nation-Building Party), and was a candidate in Tongan general elections in 2008, 2010 and 2014. Paora (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lotu Filipine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Only one brief article exists [here https://www.looptonga.com/business/lotu-filipine-wins-500-cash-digicel-tonga-easter-promotion-91903], which is not enough. Shinadamina (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sports. Shinadamina (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article I linked to, is not even about his career and may not be him. Shinadamina (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Japan, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a sexual harassment incident when he was captain of the Tonga under-21 team [14]. There should be more on this, but it would require digging in NewzText, which I don't have access to. IdiotSavant (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep World Cup player and a simple search is bringing up WP:GNG passing coverage. There is likely more coverage offline also from the time of his career and locations of his playing career. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share 2 or 3 reliable sources that have in-depth coverage on the person. We cannot assume reliable sources from the past can be found. We need to find them. Appearances in World Cup are not sufficient, unless there is such a WP policy which I am not aware of. If so, please link to the said policy. Shinadamina (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players.Lacks WP:SIGCOV for standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players as suggested above. None of the sources applied, presented or found brings this subject past WP:SPORTSPERSON which specifies at least one reliable source directly detailing the subject. BusterD (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players: Doesn't fully meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:SIGCOV, hence, I agree to redirect. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tonga national rugby union players: Doesn't meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:SIGCOV, per Safari Scribe. History6042 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

for occasional archiving