Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Oceania. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
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:
Purge page cache watch


edit

St. Francis of the Fields

edit
St. Francis of the Fields (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)

Contested Prod without rationale or improvement. As Mccapra said in their Prod nomination, "Non notable primary school". Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is not enough reliable sourcing out there. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VT Markets

edit
VT Markets (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)

Originally created by user with virtually no other substantive edits with promotional tone. DePRODded by an IP which added additional content aggregator/press release references; subsequent notability tag removed by an apparent SPA. No WP:SIGCOV in sources within article and a search does not reveal any - no mentions at all in the Australian Financial Review or other serious financial press is suggestive of a lack of notability. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rankin (photographer)

edit
Robert Rankin (photographer) (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)

See various tags Sushidude21! (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this is an autobiography, and so needs to be looked at/verified by an independent reviewer. but he does seem notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. Lots of scanned documents of genuine secondary sources with independent coverage. Agree with Parakanyaa that they are indeed real, and indicate the subject passes GNG. Article has been in article space since December 2024 and is therefore not eligible for a move to draft under an WP:INCUBATION rationale as it is too old. The autobiography writing is concerning and the COI issues are evident. However, COI conflict isn't something we handle here at AFD and has no relevance to notability policy. This should be handled by the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) if it hasn't been reported there already. For AFD's purposes this article meets our guidelines. The issues in the article, which are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, can be solved through editing under the guidance of COIN.4meter4 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallgoods

edit
Smallgoods (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)

"Smallgoods" is an Australia and New Zealand synonym for lunch meat, and could be very easily merged into that article; half of this article is a brazen WP:ADVERT anyways, and the topic does not fulfill WP:GNG. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pajeet

edit


Pajeet (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)

Largely trivial coverage in sources (RS or otherwise), fails WP:SIGCOV for notability esecially for a racial slur like this. The exact article (with the same sources) has been repeatedly created from a redirect by the singular WP:LTA sock network Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial ([3], [4], [5], [6]) whose intentions have been nothing more than racist trolling ([7], [8]). The article itself has only served as a racist troll magnet whenever it has been repeatedly created ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]). Edit: And 20 more accounts have just been banned for disruption related to the article since this AfD has been up ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] and 12 more).

Coming to the sources (currently/previously at the article/Talk):

We ultimately have very few RS which cover the term in any significant capacity, a standalone article as such cannot really be justified (nothing which can't be/isn't already covered at List of ethnic slurs). The slur is no different from more older ones (e.g. 1, e.g. 2) whose standalone articles we do not feature for similar reasons. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, Hinduism, Sikhism, India, Canada, Australia, United States, United Kingdom. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per nominator's own admission that this term finds non trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the NCRI report on Hinduphobia, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and DFRAC. These three sources provide in-depth coverage required for the article, see WP:THREE. Koshuri (あ!) 09:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    THREE is a personal essay (really the first time I am seeing it at AfD). Though I would like to clarify that I haven't listed DFRAC as RS nor have I listed ISD as non-trivial. That you have cited stable while restoring the largely socked version of the article is concerning. Gotitbro (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:THREE is only to back my point that in most cases only three reliable sources with in-depth coverage are enough to prove notability. Your continued disparagement of the article's stable version as sock despite it being restored and responsibility for the content being taken by multiple editors in good standing is getting tendentious. Koshuri (あ!) 10:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has taken "responsibility for the content", Altenmann initially restored the article [41]/[42] the article (also saying refs were a plenty which as can be seen were really just trivial bloat) and was clearly unaware of sock shenanigangs. The restoration was imediately challenged twice by different editors [43], [44] but ultimately restored again by you [45] telling editors to take it to AfD. None of this would be considered WP:STABLE. Why would you revert apparent sock cleanup is also beyond me.
    Coming to THREE, a user essay which has been neither satisfied nor a standalone article based on these justified. Nothing we can't handle at the pre-existing list. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable term as per the sources mentioned above. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#P or Delete (in that order of preference): Fails WP:SIGCOV. There is currently no scholarly source at all that discusses the subject. Coverage so far is limited to mostly low-quality sources. There is also precedence per "curry-m*ncher" being redirect to the list article and "d*t head" not existing. The fact that article was written primarily by a sock-farm (with seven year long history of socking), who misrepresented even the already questionable sources and quickly added the slur to a WP:BLP only shows the bad-faith disruption. The tendency of some editors to prefer that source-misrepresented sock version is also beyond me. Given the obsessive preoccupation that the longtime sock has with the slur, I expect a visit by him here as well eventually. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement that sourcing must be scholarly for establishing the notability of a term, regardless there is enough scholarly coverage for this article . "Curry muncher" and "dothead" are little known and were never used widely unlike the term "Pajeet". So quoting them as "precedence" is a non argument. The rest of your argument is nothing more than the same disparagement of the article for being created by a sock and bad faith assumptions. Koshuri (あ!) 14:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, scholarly sources are not necessary for notability (the subject fails notability regardless of the lack of any meaningful scholarship on it) but scholarly sources give the most reliable information, which the article and indeed the term currently largely lacks. As for curry-m*ncher being "little known and were never used widely unlike the term Pajeet", that is simply false. For one, we have multiple scholarly sources for it: Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2006), The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Routledge, p. 534; Virtual Homelands: Indian Immigrants and Online Cultures in the United States, University of Illinois Press, 2014, p. 29; Anne Collett; Leigh Dale, eds. (2018), Postcolonial Past & Present, BRILL, p. 174 and many, many more scholarly as well as literary usages. Asserting otherwise is stretching the limits of WP:OR, which unsurprisingly is also what the sock version of the article mostly was. We don't reward specific slur-obsessed socks by going against precedence and sourcing guidelines. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We have similar articles like Paki (slur), American-born confused desi, etc more. Pajeet is a popular term across social media and sources are well notable (per argument by other Keep votes). But I agree this article must be improved and rephrased to Good Faith.. It shouldn't be used for trolling as like the sock editor. The current version seems stable enough but the more good faith & neutral, the more better to keep the article. WinKyaw (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The former is well attested in RS [per its article], the latter is not a slur (and also well attested). "Popular term across social media" raises questions on the kind of social media being referred to [we are not a documentation hub for 4chan and X bigots] rather than as a rationale for notability. Gotitbro (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well here in this category, I see lots of similar articles. Nothing much wrong with this being existing. And popular term across social media is for all medias especially Facebook, Instagram, X & so on.
    Mainly I think if Pallywood, Locust (ethnic slur), Polaco (slur), Wetback (slur), etc can exist, there's nothing wrong with this article too! WinKyaw (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pallywood has sources published by Sussex Academic Press, Routledge, Journal of Communication, Third World Quarterly and many other similar academic sources. Polaco and Wetback have similar academic sourcing. This article lacks any comparable sources, thus the comparison is faulty. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whether the article was created by a sock or not is irrelevant given the subject meets WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The term is inaccurate, but quite widespread colloquially. Svartner (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely used internet slur that has persisted for some time. Metallurgist (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has been considerably improved in good faith and as per @Ratnahastin WP:SIGCOV has been sufficiently addressed.
I must say, it is of interesting note that a user has just been blocked for vandalizing the article as we are actively discussing this.. Eulersidentity (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(abstention; I would prefer to let people who care more about the issue decide. only... well, I wrote all of the below already, for some reason—no, I don't know why either—and will submit it, just in case it's useful to the discussion, I guess–)
It seems, (a), that it is not in dispute that there are RSeseses that cover the term (regardless of "uncertain" or dispreferred source coverage as well); and, (b), that the given reasons for deletion aren't very strong—"created by a sock" & "has been vandalized" don't necessarily have any bearing on an article's quality or significance (although recurrent vandalism might be a reason to edit-protect the article or something?).
In re the "argument from (lack of) other articles": I'm not sure we want to lean too heavily on this yardstick (when is the answer "delete this one too, then", and when "well then, someone needs to start making the others"?)...
...but I dunno—I can see a decent argument along these lines, actually. I think "dot-head" was probably way more common than "pajeet" until, like, the 2020s at least—though I may be wrong about that—and yet it seems to me that the former does not need an article to itself: that's more the proper fodder for a lexicon or dictionary of some kind, and not so for an encyclopedia, surely.
So... I guess that if the RS coverage for this new(?) "p-word" consists merely of "glossary of slurs in 2025" articles & the like, and/or just brief "here's the meaning of this term you may have seen recently" click-grist: then that might add some weight to the "delete" option. Conversely, though, if the sources mostly engage in some sort of discussion of the zeitgeist, or whatever, and tie something therefrom to the term—i.e., there's more to note than just "this term is used now & here's what it means"—that's points for the "keep" side.
I think I saw someone on the Talk page arguing that the article didn't include proper "contextualization", which (in the user's estimation, and IIRC) would involve explaining that other groups have been the recipients of similar abuse in the past.
On one hand, my initial reaction was suspicion—like, "hold on, do other articles about this-or-that term need to inform the reader of the history regarding yet other unrelated terms?" ("and anyway, surely everyone already knows that the same ol' tribalistic complaints have a long & ignoble history... right?")—but (upon the other gripping-appendage): I can see an argument for "usage of slurs in general" being within the "contextual diameter" of the article.
(...plus, assuming that "everyone" knows something is a sure route to disappointment; quite often it seems that people don't actually know very much at all–)
Upshot, anyway: perhaps if such "contextualization" of the term was added to the article, everyone would be happy...? I can't see that it would hurt the article, and it might even actually be informative & relevant?
Anyway, 'sall. Cheers,
Himaldrmann (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The term "Pajeet" is highly notable and has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources:
  • In a case study by Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University, this term is covered extensively, with almost entire study revolving around it. 33 mentions of the slur , along with his history, usage, variants etc all are covered over several pages.[46]
  • In a report by Rohit Chopra, Professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University and Visiting Scholar at the Center for South Asia at Stanford University, the term is covered extensively and it is published by the Centre of study of organized hate[47]
  • Non trivial coverage in a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue [48]
  • Extensive coverage in DFRAC , an IFCN certified fact checker. This report covers the origin, and history of the term along with analysis of its usage on social media. [49]
  • Significant coverage in a Global Project Against Hate and Extremism  (GPAHE) study [50]

Enough to prove that this term is highly notable and has received scholarly attention. It has also been used as an insult against various public figures of Indian origin in the west as well and there is ample news coverage for that, but I won't be citing that. Ratnahastin (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The review of sources in the nomination is appalling. With your logic, we can reject any sources such as CNN ("they are favorable to Democrats"), Oxford University press ("they are situated in the mainland of colonial British empire") or any other source. Sikhpride38 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, entirely apalling that we don't consider thecommunemag.com (samvadaworld.com), hindupost.in, hindutimescanada.ca, Know Your Meme, townpost.in, baaznews as RS nor trivial mentions of the term. None of the rationale that you cite has been given above. Interesting that an account, with only 11 edits, that hasn't edited in 3 years suddenly pops up at an AfD and then proceeds to revert SPA tags. Gotitbro (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is defending unreliable sources like Hindupost ans Communemag. You are doubting credibility of even DFRAC, Online Hate Prevention Institute, The Daily Pennsylvanian and other reliable sources. According to your logic, there can be no reliable sources. Sikhpride38 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For DFRAC, I could not find any independent coverage of it as a source beyond media reposts of its 'fact-checks', the Online Hate Prevention Institute lacks a byline and has a single-line mention of the term, The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student newspaper with barely anything to say about the term. Hence, under unsure reliability. These are not the sources that you want to be hedging notability on.
I will note that you have repeatedly reverted the SPA tag added by different editors, very COI. Gotitbro (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I refuse to defend myself against a mischaracterization? Looks like you don't understand what is a "COI". Back to the actual topic, you are just proving the point that every source would seem unreliable if we used your logic. The Daily Pennsylvanian is used in 100s of Wikipedia article.[51] Sikhpride38 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Pennsylvanian: Usage elsewhere at enwiki has no bearing on why student newspapers should be cited in the first place, lacks sigcov anyhow.
Conflict of interest is removing tags added by uninvolved editors in a contentious topic space. Does not help that a new user with barely a few edits is well versed with AfDs, SPA and COI. I further wonder why you think this is neutral, seemingly furthering racist tropes without any balance. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have only responded to some editors about clarifications for the nom statement, ridiculous to call this BLUDGEON. Gotitbro (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Octavius Ryland

edit
Octavius Ryland (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with 1 hit. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Carter (convict)

edit
Fred Carter (convict) (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Richards (convict)

edit
Theodore Richards (convict) (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Lloyd (convict)

edit
James Lloyd (convict) (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Jones (Australian convict)

edit
William Jones (Australian convict) (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. A common name so many namesakes come up in searches. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Hubbard (convict)

edit
John Hubbard (convict) (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. The 1 cited source is not indepth. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Humphrey (convict)

edit
James Humphrey (convict) (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. Searching in Australian database Trove came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests notability. Mark Gould (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does now. Hesperian 09:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that being a member of a notable group of people necessarily makes the subject notable in himself. I think there is a case for merging the information in this article into Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia together with a number of similar articles (at least one of which has also been proposed for deletion). Mark Gould (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Warren (convict)

edit
AfDs for this article:
John Warren (convict) (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)

Since the previous AfD we are much stricter on notability. Searches in google books and Australian trove for [John Warren (convict)] seem yield to namesakes. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Strehlow

edit
John Strehlow (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'm struggling to see the notability of this subject. He has a highly notable family and there is coverage of him in relation to his family, but not really individually. The biography he wrote might make the benchmark for an article for him, but it's pretty borderline. He doesn't seem notable as a theatremaker. Boneymau (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of his theatrical work, his Triad Stage Alliance was the first Australian company to perform on the Edinburgh Fringe. They also won a Fringe First for that performance. In my opinion, that gives Strehlow some degree of relevance, even if it's just for the Edinburgh Fringe. He also wrote a number of plays that were successful throughout Europe. That, on top of his biographical work, justifies the existence of a John Strehlow article. Dr. Johnny (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In 19 years on Wikipedia, I have rarely, if ever, seen such an over-written article. It is also badly under-referenced, except for a lot of incomplete references, usually missing titles and page numbers, to theatre reviews that are, apparently, not available online. I have greatly reduced the cruft/fluff/trivia, though I think the article should really be cut back quite a bit more. Two of the "citations" aren't even citations, just lists of critics who supposedly reviews his book, and nearly all very incomplete, missing the title of the source(!) and have no page number or url. I'm not convinced that running an Australian theatre company that was supposedly (cite needed?) the first to perform at the Edinburgh Fringe theatre festival, even if that could be verified, makes him or it notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The terrible current state can be alleviated somewhat by going back a year in the history (prior to the major changes emanating from Washington of all places). His book The Tale of Frieda Keysser was reviewed in Aboriginal History, The Monthly and The Weekend Australian. Maybe could be handled differently, eg by moving to an article on the book with some background on the author but that does not require deleting. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aboriginal History is a journal. Review is in Volume 36, 2012, four page (203-206) review by Regina Ganter from Griffith University. -- added by Duffbeerforme
The Monthly
The Weekend Australian, ~2190 word review by Nicholas Rothwell, 11 Feb 2012.
What is the title of the article in Aboriginal history? What is the title and page no. or url of the article in The Weekend Australian? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Title and page number of Weekend Australian added, no url I know of, is available in NewsBank. PDF of Book reviews section of Aboriginal History [58]. Journal info [59]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the article "False witness" in The Australian 10 November 2020 by Amos Aikman also helps. May be available online behind a paywall titled "Was Walter Baldwin Spencer a forger and a fraud?". duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ansarada

edit
Ansarada (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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. The sources are not very strong, and the subject’s notability is unclear. The page comes across as promotional for the company. Oftermart (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At least a little more discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are some sources with coverage: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. No opinion about whether this is sufficient enough to pass WP:ORGCRIT. It might be. Or it might not. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konstas

edit
Konstas (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)

Only one with a stand alone article. Redirect to Sam Konstas per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD process is not a great place for primary topic discussions, WP:RM should be used instead, because a name index can still remain even if one topic is chosen as primary (maybe there are other entries that just aren't documented there yet).
The other Konstas entry seems to match the guideline on items without standalone articles. It links to a player at an Olympic event, so there is some obvious potential.
The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level. Why would the average English reader strongly associate this name with this person?
A Google Books search for the term shows me nothing in particular, a lot of ambiguity.
It seems more likely that the average reader wouldn't recognize this term at all. Short-circuiting to one person instead of presenting this short list doesn't seem to be particularly beneficial. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale is The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level.. Quick fact check; Sam Konstas has played Test Cricket at the Senior Level. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I skimmed the article and apparently missed that. Maybe this information would be obvious to someone who is more in-universe in this regard, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a secondary source on cricket, or any other sport, or any other field of endeavor. --Joy (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joy I get what you are saying, but I don't think citing google books is a good example as many authors of books won't be notable. I also understand that this is a general encyclopaedia. I still stand by my argument that Sam is the primary topic. He's not Messi, Ronaldo or Michael Jordan type notable. Not even as notable as someone like Sam Kerr. But Sam Konstas before his Test debut got was considered an exciting prospect and arguably got the most attention of anyone on the Boxing Day Test. The other is a water polo player who played at the 1972 Olympics. Basically I would argue he was just considered a part of an Olympic squad. Don't think he was notable for anything besides being there. Sam on the other hand got a lot of attention for playing Un Orthodox shots. It's a good rationale but I am still convinced Sam is the primary topic. Also with regards to books, books on stuff like war are going to have the names of many non notable people in a war. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should be looking for indicators of significance, such as for example some relevant biographer's secondary source about this person. It's hard to expect for this to exist at such a young age, and likewise it's hard to expect that the average reader associates this surname with this person.
How do we normally measure attention in this topic area, and how does that compare to worldwide general measurements of the same? I don't know.
Google Trends for the search terms show two spikes of interest, both of which are past now, and interest is miniscule now.
That website also showed me the topic of Giorgos Konstas, which we don't have documented here, but it's plausible that we could.[65]
I see evidence that in recent times people have looked up the the surname probably in reference to this one person, but no real evidence that this is an actual primary topic according to the guideline. --Joy (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's still not clear to me what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to failing notability criteria as a surname page. Then it can be redirected as a primary redirect if necessary. The argument put forth by Joy is only relevant if this page is notable, which it clearly is not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm a minor anthroponymy index might not be (obviously) notable according to the WP:N article guideline, but that guideline isn't meant to apply to it because it's not a regular article. WP:5P1 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. which is why we include these sorts of indices even if they're not articles. --Joy (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A set index article is a form of list, which falls under list-based notability criteria. Something violating that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am unaware of a policy where set index pages are an exception to that rule, and 5P1 can simply mean that infoboxes contain almanac-like or gazette-like information alongside the article itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not really just a form of a list. Have you ever seen WP:Set index#Common selection criteria? The concept of it being a list of notable items has been documented there since 2019 (probably, that's from my quick search, could be older).
    The idea of these sorts of set indexes often being very similar to disambiguation pages, hence not necessarily just list articles, has likewise been discussed at length, e.g. at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 9#Request for comment in 2024 but we didn't reach a clear conclusion on what to do. --Joy (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That seemed to have its fair share of people arguing essentially the same thing that I am - that a set index article requires context and therefore notability (i.e. something like Herman (name)). While it can certainly be a list of names, The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. In the absence of consensus, it reverts to the status quo, which is that name lists are not a form of disambiguation. It would need people to agree that they are, which didn't happen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We habitually add name lists into disambiguation pages, this is long documented in the WP:D guideline and there is no missing consensus there. The formatting changes to make this Konstas set index a disambiguation page are trivial. --Joy (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I disagree with the idea that just because we didn't reach a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about the matter of navigation pages in that discussion, that we should just toss all that into the wind. That would truly be dismissive of the volunteer time invested in it, and it would be suspiciously close to WP:Status quo stonewalling. We never had a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about a bunch of things expressed e.g. in the WP:D guideline text (that's the one I've investigated the most so I say this with a bit of experience), and yet we generally recognize most of it as applicable. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
edit

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


edit

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

None at present
edit

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

None at present
edit

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


edit

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

None at present

|}

Shortcut


New Zealand

edit

Janzen Madsen

edit
Janzen Madsen (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)

Seemingly an attempted bypass of a previously several-times-rejected draft at Draft:Janzen Madsen. In short, this subject meets neither WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. There is little to no sourcing about this developer himself other than the fact he helped create Grow a Garden, and furthermore, no significant coverage. It is also an extremely poorly written and sourced article that I don't think has any place on Wikipedia at all and violates more WP:BLP policies than I can count, so even if the subject was notable (which I don't believe they are), WP:TNT likely applies. The only saving grace that could possibly save this article is WP:NCREATIVE, but I would personally not consider Grow a Garden to be a "significant or well-known work". And again, even if they were, if no reliable sources on the subject exist, it shouldn't be an article regardless of what the SNG says. Even the main WP:SNG policy hints towards this ("Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia"). Normally, in a case like this, I'd advise a redirect, but in this case in particular I think searching for the developer themselves is implausible and this article as it is right now should not be preserved in my blunt and honest opinion. λ NegativeMP1 22:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the alt for the account that made this article. First off, I think he deserves an article because he is very well known in the Roblox Community. Secondly, im not really a good writer, so I apologize in advance for my poor writing. While I do agree for the sources, I have sourced some of Jandel’s personal life. Im sorry if this doesn’t make sense. Again, im not a good writer. I apologize in advance if it violates Wikipedia’s policies. One thing to note however is that i began writing on the Janzel Will Madsen page, not Janzel Madsen. Again, i apologize. Cheers!
-Wikiman2230 Idk887621 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being well known in the Roblox community is not an automatic golden ticket to notability. He needs to be covered in WP:RS, which I'm seeing none of. UnregisteredBiohazard! 02:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also just so you know, i dont think it’s a bypass Idk887621 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per above. readers can look for info in fandom roblox wiki drinks or coffee or prime *GET OUT* 13:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallgoods

edit
Smallgoods (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)

"Smallgoods" is an Australia and New Zealand synonym for lunch meat, and could be very easily merged into that article; half of this article is a brazen WP:ADVERT anyways, and the topic does not fulfill WP:GNG. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Clemens de Lisle

edit
Mary Clemens de Lisle (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)

There does not appear to be any significant coverage nor any coverage of her as an architect either. I can't review the book source but it is only one source and assuming that the article accurately represents her coverage then it falls below SIGCOV. It almost feels like an A7 given we have an article on an architect that fails to mention any architectural wok. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a month's time (20th September), there's an edit-a-thon being planned for NZ Women in Architecture, and one of the targeted articles for improvement is this one.
It's probably best to withdraw this AFD until after the edit-a-thon takes place, in case anything of value is uncovered then? Nil🥝 04:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any plan to improve the page at the event (it mentions the article as an example of an existing article but says 'Our focus will be on enriching and creating pages related to Merle Greenwood, Dorothy Wills, Mary Dorothy Edwards, Mary Hay, Marjorie Penty and Nancy Northcroft.'), but if I am willing to delay/withdraw the AfD if someone does plan on taking a look at in within the near future. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not yet able to review the book, and I am unlikely to get to it before the end of next month. However, I have included what I could find from online secondary sources, and I am happy to continue searching and contributing. I have been able to find more about her work as an artist; unfortunately, it is probably not enough for SIGCOV yet. I note that she is now listed on the edit-a-thon page as Mary Clemens de Lisle (I think she was also listed under Mary Hay, her birth name), so I would second the Nil's suggestion of delaying until after that event, if possible. Ewhite31 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw and re-evaluate it after the event is finished. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for @Nil NZ for mentioning the upcoming edit-a-thon, I will make sure this article gets some attention leading up to and at that event. Thanks @Traumnovelle it would be great to hold off until after the event, as I hope it can be improved by then. @Ewhite31 Thank you! I will also do some research. Winnieswikiworld (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Cathie

edit
Bruce Cathie (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 article on a deceased New Zealand airline pilot lacks any references to WP:RS (two sources are present, the author's own former website and the UFO magazine Nexus Magazine). Cathie was known for self-publishing a number of UFO books from the 1970s to 1990s but awareness of him never advanced outside the obscure ufology subculture. A WP:BEFORE finds an obit [66] but nothing else aside from one-line quotes here and there in RS, and more extensive treatments in unambiguously non-RS. Probably more appropriate for a UFO fan Wiki than our encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to add these sources I found as well [68], [69]. Seems to be mentioned in the same circles as the Ancient Aliens folks on TV. I'm not sure how much of it is real, but it's enough for an article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New Zealand Herald obit is the same one I mentioned in the OP. While it's a start, I think we need more than that. The book has ~10,000 sentences and mentions Cathie in two, which I don't think meets the spirit of WP:SIGCOV.Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's the Guardian as well, it's a fairly long article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice little treatment -- about 350 words -- of his theory. It would be a great source for an article on this "grid" theory. But it really contains no biographical information on Cathie himself other than he, at some undefined moment in time, was a living person and that now he is not living. Chetsford (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of old newspaper coverage over several decades [70] (the piece linked by Oaktree b, useful to see the issue imo) [71] [72] [73] [74]. involved with Van Tassel et al. [75] [76] not a useful source but has a free photo of him so that's good NZHerald piece is also good.
Talked about in so many truly deranged books that it was hard to find the good but this university press book has a decently bit on him [77] and more on pages 90 and 92. He also has a full entry in the Ronald D. Story Encyclopedia of UFOs [78] I have used this source before and found it to be a good encyclopedia (rare in the world of UFOs encyclopedias; the entry i used before was a solid entry on the sociology of ufo religions). All in all, NZ obituary + guardian piece + academic book + encyclopedia + assorted old news coverage add up to a pass of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, esp given how source discuss his relationships and influence on other ufologists. Didn't try to search for his books, might be more there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA -- I'm going to be frank; it's very difficult for me to respond to your interventions in AfDs on flying saucer topics as you have a tendency to firehose a huge number of references you've scooped up that happen to have one-line mentions of the subject into the article before !voting Keep and it's simply impossible to check every single one of them. I don't know why you do that, but the reason is ultimately irrelevant. In any case, as usual, I'm not able to check all of these so I did a spot check:
  • Item 1 [79] is a single word mention of the subject in a long article on an unrelated person.
  • Item 6 [80] is a one sentence caption of the subject in a photo.
I'm going to make a reasonable assumption the rest are similarly fleeting mentions that don't establish SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When searching for sources imo it is helpful to dig up as much as you can.
1) No it isn't, that's several hundred words about him. If you meant the Van Tassel article (not what you linked), yes that's not sigcov, I did not say it was, I was mentioning it as an interesting connection that could help to build an article. sigcov is [81] [82]
2) Yes, that's why I said item six wasn't sigcov and that it had a good photo. I linked it because it had a good photo that was free, which are always useful when constructing articles. my caption said "Not a useful source". Are you reading what I write? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I was mentioning it as an interesting connection that could help to build an article"
"that's why I said item six wasn't sigcov and that it had a good photo. I linked it because it had a good photo that was free, which are always useful when constructing articles"
So there may be some confusion here. This (AfD) is where we identify whether sources exist to preserve an article. If you found a fun photo for the article, or interesting pieces of trivia, etc., those can be posted to the Talk page. But blasting the AfD discussion with a bunch of sources that even you acknowledge don't contribute to notability is extremely derailing to our underlying purpose. Chetsford (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant that we are able to build an article on the subject that is complete and full. Images and connections to other notable figures as part of the ufo-larp-giant rock circuit help establish the placement and influence he had even if they are not sigcov mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"connections to other notable figures as part of the ufo-larp-giant rock circuit help establish the placement"
Nope. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Chetsford (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They establish that he was known and influential on other ufologists, yes, which helps to build the article. Building the article is a different concern than notability-establishing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Building the article is a different concern than notability-establishing." Notability is the first, last, and only concern at AfD. All other matters should be addressed at the article's Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. AFD is for whether articles should be kept or deleted. Articles can be deleted on current quality grounds, or for subjects where if technically notable you can never write a good article, whether you can write a solid article or establishing sources to benefit the article is of course relevant to an AFD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article content does not determine notability. Suggestions for general improvement to the article can be made on the Talk page. Thanks for your help keeping this discussion on topic. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for subjects where if technically notable you can never write a good article
What is an example of a subject that trivially passes WP:GNG and/or WP:SIGCOV but is so problematic we for unstated (here) reasons... we can't have a viable article on it?
That's like an invitation for high-value targets to hit. You got a list for me to build articles out of? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Item 1 [14] is a single word mention of the subject in a long article on an unrelated person.
Where do you see a single one-off appearance of the text string "Cathie" here? Click here for text based non-image version.
His name alone shows up 7 times and the entire 376-word piece is about the same person--Bruce Cathie. I used it here (click here). Who is the "unrelated person"? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: Not a BLP, so the burden of proof is on the nomination and those wanting to delete this. Bearian (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Subject passes WP:GNG with multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources offering significant coverage:
* New Zealand Herald — in-depth obituary.
* New Zealand Geographic — feature with 10+ mentions and profile discussion.
* The Guardian — international newspaper profile with analysis of his theories.
* Metro (magazine) — central figure in a 2022 feature on NZ UFO history.
* Ngā Taonga Sound & Vision — archived national documentary with Cathie as a major participant.

Coverage spans decades (1970s–2020s) and multiple mainstream outlets, both domestic and international, well beyond trivial mention. This comfortably satisfies GNG. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to whatever end, I've exhausted sourcing as far as I can tell, so this is it. @Chetsford: -- WP:HEY?
* Before I began: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Cathie&oldid=1308148259
* After I'm done: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Cathie&oldid=1308515838
I'm still !keep I think. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New Zealand Herald is mentioned in my OP and I addressed The Guardian previously. The other items suffer a similar failure as The Guardian, namely, they address his theory and don't provide meaningful biographical information about the subject. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But they seem to have allowed me to craft a reasonably solid small article that spans the man's career and life over decades. Each of them had mention of biographical items alongside his research stuff. It simply required my reading every word on each article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's fine. I'm not going to rehash months of previous discussion about your interpretation of significant coverage. Chetsford (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gwendoline Taylor

edit
Gwendoline Taylor (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 heavily promotional stub is about an actress who does not pass WP:NACTOR, as she has played only supporting roles in notable productions. She also fails WP:GNG, the closest thing to SIGCOV in a reliable source she's received is a couple sentence-long passing mentions such as this for being cast in Spartacus: War of the Damned. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ludo Campbell-Reid

edit
Ludo Campbell-Reid (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)

There seems enough questioning of his notability here, vs. BIO puffery, to at least justify opening the discussion through AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"sheer wankery of the details"
Oh, antipodeans, we poms do love you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories / Templates / etc.

edit

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit

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

Sunpendulum

edit
AfDs for this article:
Sunpendulum (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)

See tags Sushidude21! (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Meta

edit
Hubert Meta (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Eliminated in first bout. The 1 google news hit isn't about this person. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinye Malaibi

edit
Pinye Malaibi (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)

Declined prod with source added which appears to be a 2 line mention in a 200 page book and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

edit

for occasional archiving

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Oceania&oldid=1309194341"