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 I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPathtalk04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the subject of this page, I respectfully request its removal. Given that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit content without my approval, I have concerns about potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Therefore, I prefer that my personal information not be displayed or managed in this way, and I hope this request can be granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aumuja (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Academia Europea implies notability. The Gscholar profile for this individual shows over 24,000 citations, which I think is also notable. Easy pass at PROF or academic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming per WP:AGF that this is a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, that is only valid for a borderline case. This is not a borderline case. This stub consists of only four claims, none of which is personal information and all of which are easily verified, all four of which would individually be enough for notability: named or distinguished professorships at two different major universities, and fellow of two major academic societies for which this level of membership is a significant honor. Double pass of WP:PROF #C3 and #C5, as well as the pass of #C1 suggested by his Google Scholar profile. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1: I concur with David Eppstein. The premise of WP:BIODELETE requires a lack of consensus to keep the article, meaning it must fail notability guidelines before deletion is considered. This nomination statement did not address how that would be the case at all, while the comments from Oaktree b and David Eppstein have already demonstrated otherwise. It is even more puzzling that the teaching positions, memberships, and research progress are all publicly accessible, regardless of whether this Wikipedia article exists, these details would still be available online. I do not think this is a reasonable deletion request. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul)19:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Out of an abundance of caution I have suppressed the revisions containing that sentence, which consisted of generic fear-mongering about Chinese scholars in Australia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the user rights to view the content of the deleted version. Based on David's summary, it seems to be related to defamation of the subject rather than the disclosure of their public personal details. (Correct me if I misunderstood.) In this case, the subject should file their case at WP:RFO to request the suppression of the defamation claims, rather than having the entire article deleted. (and since David has already taken this step, perhaps we can consider the nominator's concerns alleviated and the deletion rationale resolved.) —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul)13:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Agree with above points: if notability is somewhat marginal, then we should honor the wishes of the subject, but I don't see anything marginal here. Being Fellow of the IEEE is particularly a bright line pass of NPROF. "Weak" only because I do give some weight to the wishes of the subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG as they have only ever competed in entry-level categories and one obscure international category where they did not make a notable impact. Page history indicates the page was either self-created or COI, although an attempt has been made by an IP to clean it up, and the sources are mainly social media or primary. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG as a low-level domestic Australian amateur racing driver who achieved no notable success, and none of the sources are appropriate (one primary, one social media and one from a business register). MSportWiki (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NORG failure. I was unable to find any sources which are independent of the subject, are reliable, are secondary and which reference the club directly and in detail. TarnishedPathtalk07:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Seeking more participation in this discussion and an evaluation of sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]