This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} 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.
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 Australia. 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.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Comment. @JTtheOG: The Hornsby Spiders are regularly covered, in depth, in the Daily Telegraph (Hornsby Advocate). (The "Ku-ring-gai" often gets dropped.) Their competitions are also covered by other newspapers. There is also past coverage when their teams have competed at the national level which is indexed by ProQuest (without access to the full articles unfortunately). Cielquiparle (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's helpful. The ref added is not terribly in-depth, but I'd be happy to withdraw once better sourcing can be located. JTtheOG (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool family history project, but doesn't seem like it has attracted any attention that could confer notability. Nothing to be found in any of the Australian sources that I would expect might cover something like this. MCE89 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet notability. The DJ Mag list is good, even if the entry is a tad brief, but I think that's the only good source here. Aside from that, you've got a database, one song charting unimpressively, a Sydney Morning Herald list which turned out to be just a list of names with no critical discussion, and his record label's website. Could not find anything additional, though anyone who knows a good archive of DJ/EDM publications should give a good look just in case there's more there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe she meets WP:ARTIST. Could not find coverage in google news or books. The awards do not appear major (and not reported in press). She is not part of a permanent collection of notable galleries. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am looking her up in Australian art sources to check notability. In the meantime, as most of her career has been in Germany and she has received more exposure there, is there any way to refer her article to German Wikipedia and see if the German editors can find her as a notable artist there? LPascal (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Anne Pincus does not have sources either (other Wikipedia sites have different criteria, and don't always require sources etc). Her own website, shown in the External links section, has a Press section which lists reviews of her exhibitions in publications like Süddeutsche Zeitung and Abendzeitung. Those articles have links to the newspapers' websites - I've just searched Süddeutsche Zeitung and found a 2021 review, but on first glance neither seems to go back far enough for reviews before that. I think as far as galleries are concerned, we'd also need to search in German galleries ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a single purpose editor. Searching in google news and google books yields very little, as well as Australian database trove. Fails WP:BIO. Having a medal of the Order of Australia does not confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- (moderate) -- seconding nominator's contention(s). I found this (passing mention), this (primary source), and this (primary source). Don't see how any of this would take us to notability.
Delete, the two references in the article do not count because one appears to be dead, and the other is primary source. Google search did not produce desired sources. Mekomo (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, after the execution it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1901). There is one very brief mention in an academic article from this year in an article about Australian executions, but otherwise nothing. If we had some article like "list of people executed by Australia" I would suggest a redirect to that, but we do not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah nothing much, just a couple of articles from 1902 [2] and 1904 [3] that strike me as basically that era's equivalent of sensationalised true crime stories. Nothing to suggest any real notability, and they're close enough to the murder that they don't really suggest any lasting coverage. MCE89 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable place, and not a real locality. Contains only a single source, and according to both google maps and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this place does not exist. Likely a historical place that does not exist any more and thus doesn't meet requirements for notability. I don't like deleting articles relating to georaphy as Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." however, Baarmutha is not legally recognised and it seems the area it is purported to be in, is part of Beechworth. Viatori (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this book: [4], but I don't have access to it. Would that be enough for notability? I would tend to think a place that had a post office for that long would be at least somewhat documented, but maybe post offices work differently in Australia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most places did have post offices, under names that don't exist today, but they don't seem to meet the notability requirements and thus don't have articles. The only remnants of the name today are businesses that still use the name. Viatori (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ghost town and former gold mining area. The 1907 Victorian Municipal Directory and Gazette calls it a township with a school, a library, and a population of 100. [5] There's not a lot of mentions, but it passes WP:GEOLAND and comes up in some historical scholarly articles and in agricultural information. SportingFlyerT·C04:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Maps and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are not the official place names register for anywhere in Australia. To determine if a place name is official, then the place to check is the relevant government's register. For Victoria, the official place name register is VicNames. It is somewhat annoyingly more aimed at providing map info, but if you use their download button, you can get the register entry in a spreadsheet format. It does indeed list Baarmutha, so it is an official name. And, as commented above, historic locations are notable if sources exist. VicNames mentions a books and a website. A quick search of the State Library of Victoria's catalogue reveals a number of photos, books, etc exist. Looking at Trove, there is plenty of newspaper coverage (ok, not all of it is useful for a Wikipedia article, but it demonstrates it was a place of significance in its time). Having written some of these kinds of articles myself, I would suggest a more accurate first sentence might be "Baarmutha is a former town and now neighbourhood within the locality of Wherever, Shire of Whatever, Victoria, Australia." Kerry (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, once the trial was over it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1925) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure I understand what you are expecting for this article. This murder happened a century ago. Her father was convicted of her murder. Are you looking for an Aftermath section at the bottom? Can you link a similar article that is written the way you think this should be? — Maile (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a routine event, even if it was 100 yrs ago. Guy does bad thing, goes to trial, gets jailed. Like the other two murders discussed in the final paragraph, it got media attention, so was sensationalized. Nothing notable about the media hyping up a story to sell papers. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on Trove reveals lots of local coverage from 1925 but nothing after that and nothing with any real depth. Seems to fail WP:NEVENT. For it to be notable, I would expect to see some kind of WP:LASTING coverage published more than a couple of months after the murder, and some coverage that goes beyond the routine details of the trial. For instance, the Gun Alley Murder is a somewhat similar Australian murder case from the same period, and its sources very clearly demonstrate its notability by comparison. MCE89 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a pretty cut-and-dried case of a sensational murder from a century ago of no lasting historic importance. Pretty much a TRUECRIME ONEEVENT thing. Carrite (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is supposedly about an industry association for English language schools in Australia, but contains almost no information about the actual association. Instead, almost the entire article reads as an unsourced advert/guide for how to apply to English language courses in Australia. I wasn't able to find anything to suggest that the organisation itself would meet WP:GNG - their media releases are sometimes quoted in specialist publications, but there doesn't seem to be any secondary SIGCOV. The title could potentially be turned into a redirect for either English Australians or Australian English? MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I replaced the questionable unsourced content with new content and secondary sources. It now meets notability and has adequate sources for a stub class article. Rublamb (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a massive, massive improvement, thank you for that! I've had a look at the new sources, but I'm not really convinced that they're sufficient to demonstrate notability. Of the new sources, the only secondary sources that go beyond very brief mentions of English Australia/the ELICOS Association are the articles in The Koala and The PIE News, both of which are pretty niche publications on international education. The PIE News one is solid, but The Koala essentially repeats the content of an appeal that English Australia sent to its members and ends with "The Koala wishes English Australia well in the running of its campaign", so I'm unsure of whether this really counts as significant coverage from an outlet independent of the subject, or to what extent The Koala is a reliable source. So of the new sources the only one that seems to me like it can be counted towards notability is the article in PIE, which wouldn't be enough to meet GNG. MCE89 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean this article [7]? There are a couple of other Canberra Times articles but they seem to just quote an ELICOS Association spokesperson. It's definitely something, but the coverage is still very, very thin IMO - we've got an article from 1992 that spends a couple of paragraphs saying the organisation exists and is unhappy about a policy, and an article from 2023 in a relatively obscure publication saying that it's celebrating its 40th anniversary. Possibly it scrapes by on those two sources, but I'm not 100% convinced by the Canberra Times article - the article is mostly about the policy issue and all it really says about the ELICOS Association is that it isn't happy about it, so I'm not really sure it qualifies as SIGCOV of the ELICOS Association. MCE89 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a compelling point, but I did manage to find this [8]. The organisation seemed to have an annual conference in the 1990s, which they documented heavily, with each year having a book that is over 200 pages. And they seemed to have reports from other companies made for them [9], [10]. I believe the contents of these reports could lead to notability. 2024 is Underway (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can consider those towards notability - they're reports that English Australia/the ELICOS Association commissioned or published, so they don't qualify as secondary sources independent of the subject. Unless there's secondary coverage of their conferences or conference proceedings in reliable sources, which I wasn't able to find on Trove, I don't think it gets us any closer to WP:GNG unfortunately. MCE89 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I strongly suggest that this article be kept due to be coverage it provides on Education for overseas students, it could be merged into Education in Australia under a new sub section named something along the lines of "Overseas students" because it is "designed for students who need to learn English before commencing formal studies in Australia" which would be significant to the articles subject. But it would be better to remain as a separate article. 2024 is Underway (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Falls short of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Only played 2 minutes in Japan's third league, which is very far from notable. Article has been expanded but I don't believe the coverage meets WP:SIGCOV, which I will outline here. Source assessment:
The longest, but I believe it is not secondary. It has wording like ""During my university days, I worked part-time"
Primary source
Primary source
Primary source
Very short, not significant
Literally one sentence, not significant
Don't think this is very significant either, describes the game on an amateur level
Keep Re your own source assessment. The first source is a LONG profile on him, and is definitely a secondary source, the “I” in the automatic translation is reported speech from inside quotes given to the journalist as part of the article (which is not an interview either, those are specific quotations, not part of a longer question and answer session/transcript). The seventh source is likewise a two page profile specifically on him (not sure if you noticed that was page 2 of two, separated by hyperlinks at the bottom of the page), whether you think the intellectual standard of the analysis in the article is up to snuff, the article itself is inarguably a SIGCOV worthy source, being an independent secondary source focused solely on the subject of the article. This[11] source looks likely to be significant too, being billed as a serialised special feature on those three players specifically… though I can’t get through the paywall to be 100% sure. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So far has only made a few appearances for Wests Tigers and their website lists him in WS Magpies squad. No problem with the article being recreated if he goes on to establish himself in the NRL team and thereby receive significantly more media coverage, but currently only mentioned in a few match reports, or on websites for teams he played for. EdwardUK (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
