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:
A year on from the last AfD and this game has still not been released. No one can play it and consequently every review of the game fails on the independence criterion. This is a software WP:NPRODUCT and Wikipedia is advertising unreleased software. WP:SIRS pertains and early access reviews cannot be independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is clearly passed. Notability does not hinge on whether a game has been released; because Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, but a recorder of facts, and unreleased games can still have things about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have some sympathy for the argument that early access reviews of a product can not be independent by definition, however I'd want to see that explicitly spelt out in WP:PAG. TarnishedPathtalk08:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes. It is spelled out in WP:PRODUCTREV, which says:
Many reviews are not independent and are, in fact, a type of advertisement and product placement. Sponsored reviews include reviews where the reviewed product is provided free of charge to the author.
No reviewer paid to review this product, as they cannot. It was provided free of charge in every case. Despite 3 votes above claiming this meets GNG, this is a product and needs to meet WP:SIRS. No evidence has yet been given that any reviews meet SIRS. In particular, WP:ORGIND is not met. No one has played this game - all claims to notability are a type of advertisement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per WP:PRODUCTREV, sponsored reviews where the author has been provided with the product free of charge are not independent, which rules our a lot of the sourcing when considering notability. What is left doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV of the product itself. This product might come out soon, at which time I would expect more reviews, which is why I suggest moving to draft. TarnishedPathtalk11:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not contain any references from media organisations and only one reference is independent from the subject of the article. The unit the article is about does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mason & Associates appears to fail GNG, based on the following reasons:
Unable to find any news regarding this ad agency in Australia
Of the four citations:
Dot Net Magazine reference is broken as essential information is omitted. Attempts to find this information have not been successful in establishing possible SIGCOV. But at most that might be the only (non-verifiable) coverage.
Web Design Index book, is a trivial mention in a generally unrespected catalog of websites. Sufficient to establish that Astron was a client, but not notability (ie NINI & SIGCOV).
2x at American Design Awards 2007 & 2009 are non-notable, (cf List of design awards) and no credible reference has been found to establish this award as noteworthy. The website link & domain is dead.
The only alternative is they might have been one of their "monthly winners" which seems to be insufficient to establish any true notability.
But beyond this, there is a mess:
The official website link is for a different company, a business development company called "Mason Associates Group" not "Mason & Associates". On page link was replaced with an archive.org version of how it appeared previously under this company.
Due to the domain name change, and that social media accounts are also dead [1] and [2], it appears this company no longer exists.
James Mason (founder) seems to be all over the place with his company name over the years, including the in-article mentioned Toshiedo which was moved into this article title, but more recently starting a new firm DRAFT:IAMJAMES which is simply a copy-paste of this article after having a move request rejected for WP:NAMECHANGE. That draft was declined due to WP:RS issues.
Looking at the founder's LinkedIn profile suggests this is simply a side gig, as opposed to an actual notable business.
Delete - This can make you a little dizzy if you follow all the trails. But it is indeed a mess. Mason & Associates was created by User:Toshiedo in 2009. On his user page he tells us his name is really "James Mason, I'm the founder and Managing Director of Toshiedo". HJ Mitchell indefed Toshido in 2010. — Maile (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the middle of filing an SPI earlier because it appears they had/have 3 accounts, and with Toshido blocked. However, it appears that it was simply softblock presumably for the promotional username, which is very different than blocking for disruptive behavior so I dropped the SPI report. TiggerJay(talk)00:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Addition; many of the refs are from what can be considered reliable outlets. The intial version would fall under WP: INHERITED due to her close ties with notable people but I neutralised to this current version.-ANUwrites15:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the sources in the article are formatted as interviews and provide very little independent coverage. No reviews of her work are cited in the article and I couldn't find any in a quick google search, but I have very limited ability to read Polish. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weal delete. The sources are poor; at best we have a few short interviews with her, nothing substantial. Her work did not win any awards and the little attention she is getting is all framed through the fact that she is a relative of a Noble Prize winner. She also has no pl wiki interwiki (and pl wiki is pretty inclusionist). I feel this falls on the WP:TOOSOON side of the borderline. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here13:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full professor with a Scopus | h-factor of 33. He has an honorary degree from Novosibrisk which might contribute to WP:NPROF#C3 (although it is unsourced) I am not certain. Citations look a bit weak for C1. I tagged it for unclear notability more than a month ago, nothing has changed. I feel it is time for more opinions about notability as I am on the fence with this one. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think, we should keep the article. I will try to find a source for the honorary degree from Novosibirsk - he told me in person, that he got one, but I don't have a source.
Keep: The article is lacking in references in a few places, but the discovery of a stable nitrene is discussed in multiple sources that give Beckmann more than a passing mention as part of the work. It's tough but I lean towards passing WP:GNG if considering the Chemistry World and C&EN articles on top of the Novosibirsk doctorate (if true). Reconrabbit14:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Honorary degrees can potentially count toward C1, they aren't guaranteed to be contributory, especially when they're not from world-renowned institutions. They definitely don't count toward GNG. The write-ups about his nitrene work are fairly standard, though they're not insignificant. I don't see a GNG pass here, but I might check his Scopus metrics to see if they line up with notability in this field. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am probably the only other chemist here commenting on this professor of chemistry. His record is notable: "270 peer-reviewed publications, 9 book chapters and 16 patent applications."? The article is peacocky, but we can address that issue.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot, I think we have to be careful here. Based upon his Scopus profile his highest cited paper here has 108 citations, plus his citations have taken a slight downturn since 2020. The journals look decent (CCR, JACS, Angewandte). However, at least in solid-state physics or materials science these numbers are not impressive. They are also low compared to chemists I have collaborated with. If his honorary degree is major, as I said in my nomination, I am OK with him squeezing past the notability bar, but it remains unconfirmed. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm from Mining and Geological Journal v. 6. no. 6 (Department of Mines, 1970) that there was a 1910 siding for the Powlett-North Woolamai Collieries, that "branched off the main line before the State Mine siding and extended about 1½ miles northward to the mine near the junction of the Loch and Dalyston–Wonthaggi roads". I can back that up with contemporary reports of commencing its construction. The journal goes on to say that "[t]he railway line to the Dudley Area Mine opened up in 1925 was rerouted to the State Mine terminal using part of the original Powlett and North Woolamai tracks near Dudley Area". What I cannot find is the 1930 line that this article claims. We don't even know that we don't have the Powlett and North Woolamai Colliery Company, the only private mine, the journal says, that operated alongside the State Coal Mine, and the real subject if we are going to have an article on this. Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a real shames that we don't have an article on that colliery. It seems to proper history. I don't know where the information in the article comes from, I couldn't find anything on it. Would it be worth updating the article with this information, since it seems to be a valid sources and updating the article contents accordingly and once the colliery is written, maybe do a merge a year down the road. scope_creepTalk17:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is every UN resolution inherently notable? This article has only one source, and perhaps it and other articles on UNSC resolutions that could easily be summarized should be redirected to a parent article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general, I would say that all UNSC resolutions are per se notable, but it is not completely unreasonable to ask the question from time to time regarding specific ones (although notwithstanding some WP:BEFORE, please, and bearing in mind that the state of an article does not bear upon notability WP:NEXIST). In this specific circumstance, at the time Nauru was not a member of the UN, which meant it could not access the ICJ without special procedure under advisement of the UNSC to the UNGA. Without this resolution, recommending the conditions the the general assembly should adopt in inviting Nauru to become a state party to the ICJ, Nauru would not ulimately have been able to bring its case against Australia two years later regarding the impact of phosphate mining; Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru. So there is a certain degree of exceptionalism to this particular resolution (as there is in fact usually with all of them). Further background on the resolution here: [3]. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nauru or suitable target. @Goldsztajn makes essentially an WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument which can be summarized as being that the resolution led to the accession to the ICJ, which led to the Phosphate case. Which is appealing, except that there seems to be nobody drawing the connection between the UNSC's actions in 1987 and the filing of the suit a few years later. Meaning, for example, a search for (phosphate and nauru and "international court of justice") gets many hits but adding "resolution 600" gets no hits. If further sources can be found, happy to reconsider but at this point this article seems likely to contribute about a sentence or two to the Nauru article which is about as much as it demonstrably deserves. Oblivy (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All UNSC resolutions have an effect in internartional law, they form part of the analysis of many aspects of studies of international law. In the case of UNSC resolution 600, the significance is the fact that to date only five countries have become state party to the ICJ statute without being members of the UN. The sourcing already posted about discusses the specific elements relevant to Nauru. Robert Kolb's "The International Court of Justice" (2014) specifically discusses the general circumstances that led to UNSC Resolution 600 (and the others preceeding it). This is also discussed in Zimmerman et al's "The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary" (2019). The resolution is discussed in Cesare Romano's "The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes" (2000). Finally, see Ramon E. Reyes Jr's 1996 article "Nauru v. Australia: The International Fiduciary Duty and the Settlement of Nauru's Claims for Rehabilitation of Its Phosphate Lands" in the New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law (Vol. 16, No.s 1&2, p.20): "According to Article 93(2) of the Charter, a state that is not a member of the United Nations may become a party to the Statute on conditions "determined by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." After such a recommendation, 'the General Assembly accepted Nauru as a party to the Statute of the ICJ. As a party to the Statute, Nauru was able to bring suit against Australia in the ICJ." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good argument, which I accept, about the importance of this process that gave Nauru the ability to invoke ICJ jurisdiction. The article is about Resolution 600, however, which is a short statement acknowledging the result. The context and process are not addressed. I looked at Reyes and Romano which discuss the process but not the resolution. For the other two, I've done what should be full-text searches at Google Scholar (article partial title and "resolution 600") and I am not seeing hits.An article on the phosphate case would be of value to the Wikipedia, and the ICJ-membership story could be part of that, but on ordinary notability principles I don't see this article as a keep. Oblivy (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's SIGCOV in multiple RS, the GNG is clearly satisfied. I may not have understood you properly, but notability is not based on an assessment of whether "context and process are not addressed", it is based on the existence of sourcing, not the state of the article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you did misunderstand, or I didn't explain clearly, or both. My point about the "context and process" was that your citations above are about the chain of events that led to Nauru joining and bringing the phosphate case. The article subject -- the resolution -- is a link in that chain of events not discussed in significant detail in multiple RS's. AFAIK, there is no SIGCOV, no GNG, no extant sourcing about the resolution to rely on for a keep vote. Oblivy (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that every UN Security Council Resolution [500 to 599], and from [601 to 700] has a page. I recognize that this is an wp:otherstuffexists argument but (a) that's an essay, and (b) 199/200 equivalent things exist seems like a pretty strong argument the community wants these stubs to exist.Separately I have created an article for Nauru v Australia as the topic was not well covered in the main article. I'll de-orphan the resolution page by linking to it there.Thanks to @Goldsztajn for holding my feet to the fire on this. Oblivy (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 501 to 600: This doesn't meet WP:GNG. It does seem useful for quick reference, as a summary of what the resolution says, but that can also be achieved by an external link to the UN page or an in-text summary. @Goldsztajn gives some good sources discussing both the phosphate case & the circumstances leading to resolutions like 600, but I think given the latter discuss the several resolutions as a whole, they could be covered in the International Court of Justice article. Definitely a lot of resolutions are notable, but as this one is mostly notable as the group of resolutions allowing non-UN members access to the ICJ, it can be discussed there instead. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the consensus is to redirect I'm fine with that, but I'd think that Nauru v Australia is a better target since
it's the most specific target for the subject matter
we can merge information about the resolution there, and
a link to the list of resolutions will create a redirect loop if the link is clicked (and yes, for reasons explained above for consistency everything on the list page should have a bluelink)
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
