Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

Perukua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO/GNG.

Apparent WP:GAMENAME of title (phonetic spelling). See [1] and [2] KH-1 (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - so many albums but does not seem to have much commercial success. Less than 200 Google Search results for Perukua Less than 70 Google Search results for "Peruquois Frances". This is not someone who is especially popular. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Monitoring and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a module in a chemistry course, and does not need a Wikipedia page. Even if there are multiple reliable and independent sources talking about this module, that content can go in the main page for the Higher School Certificate thing. Searched and could not find any sources for it. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find online study resources and WP mirrors mentioning this subject, but nothing else. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence that this Chemistry course for secondary school students passes WP:GNG. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Marland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Mourad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2013. I do not believe he meets WP:JOURNALIST. Article contains a number of uncited claims that I was not able to verify. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Journalism, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: During searches I found a bunch of stuff about them being a desirable batchelor, but none of it amounting to WP:SIGCOV. I also found food reviews by them or photographs taken by them in the food reviews of others. None of what I found meets WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NBASIC. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settler colonialism in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article does not abide by NPOV requirements. It infers that Indigenous Australians have been eliminated and that settler colonialism is an ongoing process. Nothing that the article might cover were it to be expanded could not be covered by the Australian frontier wars or history of Indigenous Australians articles.

Not a single claim in the article, except for that in the last sentence, is an encyclopaedic proposition. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this source indicates in the first line of its abstract that "Settler colonialism continues in Australia today." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the topic—of how settler colonialism applies to Australia, which is the application of a disputable academic theory, distinct from straight history—is substantially covered in reliable sources cited already in the article. I don't find the deletion rationale to square with our policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep..... .massive amount of academic publications on this topic....article needs expansion not deletion.Moxy🍁 05:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with the 2 comments above, but it does need some work. Bduke (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: May need work but is notable with a load of sources on the topic. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – "Needs work" is quite an understatement but we have a few sources to help us get started. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 04:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. The article being in a poor state does not mean it should be deleted. Google scholar and JSTOR searches indicate there is sufficient sourcing on this topic to warrant an article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Federal Police killed in the line of duty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, also no sources. Absolutiva (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Crime, Police, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MEMORIAL as it also lacks any sources. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:NLIST. Only 1 notable entry. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths as a result of Cyclone Tracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A vast majority of this article is unsourced. There's no real reason that this list should exist, as although Tracy was a horrific tragedy, it is nowhere near the most deadliest (Typhoon Yagi and Hurricane Helene of this year are more deadlier than Tracy). I'd propose it for deletion, however, it was declined. Tavantius (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tavantius (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - the specific event, and resultant deaths were of considerable trauma for the whole of Australia at the time, and this list has nothing to specifically existential comparison with other deadly cyclones. Australian weather events in the particular era were nowhere as deadly, or as circumstantially profound as it occurred in the Christmas New Year; also such surprise had been only happened on Darwin when it was bombed during the second world war. Of Australian disasters such as this one, and specifically the deaths, the actual numbers and identification of casualties is of considerable significance due to the length of time to resolve, and the potential for the number to be potentially in actuality never finalised due to suspicions about unidentified and unknown deaths.JarrahTree 06:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history. The number death is a particularly contentious and prey to misinformation and conspiracy. This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere. The reference list could be expanded to support it better.--Tenniscourtisland (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history." This might be an argument for the notability of the main article on the storm itself (and even then, it's not really...it's the sources we have about it), but not for this list. "This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere." Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. This also rings a bit hollow since you're the creator and main contributor of this article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above reasons. Refs could be improved. Here's one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a reliable source and does nothing to establish notability of this as a standalone topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (note:I removed the prod because sources are available and deletion is not a cleanup tool) The deaths involved with Cyclone Tracy has resulted in multiple government/coroner inquiries, with names added and removed at various points in time over the last 50 years. The list has changed each time the inquiries were completed so it may require restructuring to show each change deletion is not the way to improve this article. Every person and every change can be referenced, thoug some sources will be paper sourcing which is held in Northern Territory Library requiring on the ground sources. Gnangarra 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my one is bigger than yours doesnt constitute deletion reasons either. Cyclone Tracy was avery unique cyclone, in timing, size, and intensity. Gnangarra 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the overall topic of the accounting for all the deaths might be noteworthy, it's already covered at the main article. This is just a context-less list of names and ages of the dead, which runs afoul of WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There's been a long tradition of not keeping lists like this, especially from natural disasters, and this one is no different. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The event itself is notable but the names of all the casualties are not. If any are notable, they should be mentioned in the parent article. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Ajf773 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 35 and Ajf773. Only very, very notable events warrant lists of victims, e.g. Sinking of the Titanic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Cyclone Tracy. Some of the information is encyclopediac, some is not. But the main article is only 3,300 words and can handle the extra content. Thus the relevant information should be merged into the parent article. 12.69.202.75 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Striking vote by WMF-banned user. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 23:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Any notable fatalities can be included in main article. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Everything important can be in the main article. Bduke (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Allegiance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously at AfD in 2006, the article claims that the film has "garnered major media coverage and was screened at numerous local and international film festivals to great response". No actual sources to confirm this. No sources were provided at the previous AfD. The best claim to notability is being a finalist at Australian Effects & Animation Festival (AEAF): [3]. NFILM doesn't mention being a finalist as an indication of notability, only a major award win. Even if this was counted towards notability (which I'm not), it wouldn't be enough on its own. Suggesting redirection to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Australia. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The sources are kind of slow going since the bulk were done in the early to mid 2000s, but I'm finding evidence that this did get some coverage back in the day. I found some coverage of the film in The Age - the overall article was about SW fandom but the film is covered in some depth. I did find a copy of the fan magazine on Lulu, but you have to pay for it. I'm leaning towards this being notable - at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere because the sources that I'm finding tend to focus on it as one of the best examples of Star Wars fan film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial Merge: I've added a source for I-CON's audience award (but that is not in itself neither sufficient nor likely to be overwhelmingly significant). It does not appear in Will Brooker's "Using the Force" (2002) despite what GBooks suggests. I'd take an actual review on theforce.net (non-forum) but there doesn't seem to be one. At best it looks like it could be a weak keep, but it's not there yet. Of the current sources, the Otero&Redondo book is a short descriptive para and has no independent analysis/review. Nor do the The Age stories. I can't read the Herald Sun article but it appears likely to be similar (?). I'm seeing very few hits for "Fan Films Quarterly", and not clear to me if they should be treated as an RS, and how much weight should be given to their opinion even if they are. La Muy's praise is limited to stating it has (GTranslated) "a more than successful setting". Datebook is a short but solid entry in a listicle by a freelancer, but it's currently the only thing which is solid. I've taken a stab at a merge here.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Sunbury earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While it was the strongest in the immediate area within the last 120 years, it had limited effects like buckled roads and cracked plaster, so I think this one probably fails WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Australia. Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. WP:N(EQ) states that notable earthquakes should garner significant media coverage, which this one did (even non-Australian media outlets such as CNN reported on it) and it was mentioned in news reports into 2024 (see here). WP:N(EQ) also states, however, that shaking of intensity VII or greater is generally necessary for notability, which this earthquake did not reach, although in my view notability should not be defined by the magnitude or intensity. Personally, I would keep this article, but I would understand totally if it is deleted. Redtree21 (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Minor jolt, startled a lot of people but nothing beyond. Effects are also too small for inclusion into the 2023 earthquakes list. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the same reason as User:Dora the Axe-plorer. Quake1234 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [4], and some analysis here [5] and here [6]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This also seems to be a RS [7], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Run of the mill everyday person that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC) The person doesn't pass the threshold for having their own article and despite having considered acceptable red ir or mrge target, there's not quite a right one. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm open to redirect to Mortification (band) if there isn't a consensus to straight up delete, but I request it be DELETE and redirect so it doesn't get re-spawned into an article of its own single handedly by an editor down the road. Graywalls (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Current sourcing is stuff that can't be used for notability, like band's own page, facebook, youtube. Cannot tell if this guy passes any of the WP:NMUSICIAN checks either such as charting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to try and find sources for this guy. He was in one of the best-selling heavy metal bands in Australia, at the peak of their popularity, so there's probably stuff out there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp. There's lots of stuff about the bands he's in/been in, but little about him. I suspect there's probably print mentions in magazines or newspapers, but that's going to be difficult to dig through.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something establishes him notable for himself, I say he's not notable. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. from WP:INHERITORG Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's why I'm not counting that coverage of the bands he's been in, because that would be more appropriate for the requisite articles. I do see that an HM interview is referenced, but not cited, in the article. I'll try and see if I can access that. If it's an interview of "him", that would help towards individual notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Provisional) Keep vote, because there's an HM interview with/profile of him in existence. It needs to be accessed and cited, but accessibility doesn't determine notability, the coverage need only *exist*.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Ah, it's accessible online: here it is--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, found it. here I think interview with the subject can be used to verify information about the subject but obviously, words from the subject is not independent, so I question its value for conferring notability, which requires secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that he's covered in an interview by an independent reliable source would confer notability, but it's just one source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything else. HM mentioned back in 2008 that he doesn't do media appearances, so that one source might be all that there is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability for musician (I can't find any traces of a major award)Tesleemah (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:MUSICBIO#6. Prominent member of Mortification, Paramaecium and Horde (only member). The later is an obvious merge target if people want to ignore the notability guidelines which seems to be the norm these days. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BANDMEMBER, he needs coverage about him specifically in order to be notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can actually read what BANDMEMBER says and not tell us porkies. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Every band Sherlock has been in is definitely notable, no question. But, and I was surprised at this, so far it appears there's one source, mentioned above, that is about him specifically rather than a band he's part of. Horde was a one-man-band in studio, true, but that's technically separate and any info about that would be duplicated between the band article and this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So totally different to how you characterized it above. So let's look at what it actually says, "unless they have demonstrated individual notability" such as by being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." which directly satisfies the relevant SNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's circular. You're saying that they're independently notable because of the bands that they're in and thus should have their own article, and so, because they should have their own article, they're notable apart from those bands.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mortification (band). He was in multiple bands, but the article on Mortification is the only one with any meaningful information on him and it seems to be his most prominent role, with a lot of the sources that discuss him mentioning that as his most notable aspect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that redirect. There are pages of search results with RS coverage about his work in Horde. Horde also was comprised solely of Sherlock for the studio recording. There is plenty of information about him that could go into that article if it was developed more. Plus, there's also a lot of coverage of Revulsed. And that's not to mention his work in Paramaecium (which he was a member of longer than Mortification) and Deliverance. There's too many significant bands that could be the target of a redirect. If one was to be prioritized, Horde would be the most reasonable, imo, because it was a solo project.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about del for now, but just create redirect later or discuss it in one one of the target page? It's not like it takes more than a few secs to make a redirect. Graywalls (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why delete. We have a verified passing of a notability guide, and if you choose to pretend that doesn't count we have a good alternative to deletion and no one has raised any pressing BLP issues there is no actual justification for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a verified passing of notability. SNG doesn't over-ride GNG expect for some VERY special cases such as with academic textbooks. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mortification (band). This is an extremely common outcome as an alternative to deleting where, as in this case, the person’s sources are terrible, but they did tour internationally in a band. His solo band projects might also have the same fate. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would his solo project be redirected? I can get pages of results discussing Horde, including in multiple books. And that's the only solo project of his. I'd argue that it's equally a possible redirect target as Mortification.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To my surprise, there's only a singular source, and at that an interview, about Sherlock himself. Plenty of coverage for his bands, including Horde. To my regret, then, I'm going to go with delete here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not seeing a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mortification (band) as an ATD. As per the discussion above, this is really not very easy. Horde_(band) would be an alternative target for redirection and I'd argue a better one except for the current votes for Mortification, which at least ensures a solid result from this very fluid AfD more likely! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Given this discussion about NBAND, I suggest that a decision be pending the result of that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's more of a longer term target. Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This AFD is not about a band. The discussion is about an individual. Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mortification. Per nom, the subject fails WP:GNG. Although he has been a member of notable bands, WP:INHERENTWEB comes into play. I think this is the best alternative to deleting the article altogether.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

None at present

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

None at present

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

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_25#Category:Squares_and_ball_games

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

None at present

The Bellbirds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Corresponding to the tag that has been sitting on the page for 11 years, it looks like they completely fail WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only four news articles on the band, and each only gives them a mention, no in-depth coverage. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this does not get close to WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. The references in the article do not establish notability for the band with the scanty discussion of the subject. Mekomo (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Island Kea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Stub article, doesn’t meet threshold required by WP:NSPORT. Is about a potential rugby league team but way below the standard of other similar articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caerlayheh (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Antunovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete No significant coverage. My own searches yield nothing other than discussions of his involvement in cases and some interviews. Barring something extraordinary about his representation he doesn't inherit notability from the cases. Oblivy (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson.^[1] He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid.^[2][3] I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court.^[4] There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders.^[5] In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases".^[6] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

no articles proposed for deletion at this time