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:
Delete – The article never seems to have been referenced properly since its creation. My WP:BEFORE searches turned up no significant coverage in decent sources apart from passing mentions of the characters played. I therefore suggest that the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the publisher of the site covered by this page, I would like to reactivate an earlier discussion concerning its potential deletion. I support this idea and the suggestion of absorbing its subject matter into a more general page about Australian political blogging. William Bowe (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created in 2008, it had just one source since then and currently has nothing to pass notability per Google search results indication. This game fails WP:NGAME. Mekomo (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renominating as last AfD was no consensus. No significant coverage in gnews, gbooks and Australian search engine Trove. Most of the sources are primary like minister's announcements and government sources. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains no reliable sources, has been marked as such for over 4 years. I've looked for sources but have been unable to find anything reliable or reputable, Google News, Newspapers and Books turns up nothing at all. Current text is likely original research, possibly advertising - suspicion they've been written by the person the article is about. Also question the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfwaywrong (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 November 2024
I was a bit surprised to see this page nominated for deletion out of the blue after its been online since I think 2007 or so.
There are currently About 1,570 results in google for "Shakir Pichler" in quotes and that's not including the extraneous ones if googled without quotes.
The sources are reliable - IMDB for example but I think it could do with some proper formatting perhaps.
I have edited it from time to time when others have added incorrect data as well as removing old social links like myspace from the days of old :) and this page is also linked on various other wiki pages band line-ups and feature films for example.
It's certainly not being used for 'self promotion' in any way but it is factual of someone who has made a worthy contribution to both Australian music as well as Australian and Hollywood feature films so not sure why it was targeted to be honest.
There are a bunch of other credible links I could provide when I have the time and I should edit the page to make it more up to date at some point.
Anyway, again, it's definitely not 'self promotional' just because I made sure it was factual.
I'd love some help in adding all the proper ref links (film credits) (Band credits) and things to make sure it adheres to any changing wiki regulations.
This is a module in a chemistry course, and does not need a Wikipedia page. Even if there are multiple reliable and independent sources talking about this module, that content can go in the main page for the Higher School Certificate thing. Searched and could not find any sources for it. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not abide by NPOV requirements. It infers that Indigenous Australians have been eliminated and that settler colonialism is an ongoing process. Nothing that the article might cover were it to be expanded could not be covered by the Australian frontier wars or history of Indigenous Australians articles.
Keep the topic—of how settler colonialism applies to Australia, which is the application of a disputable academic theory, distinct from straight history—is substantially covered in reliable sources cited already in the article. I don't find the deletion rationale to square with our policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe02:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. The article being in a poor state does not mean it should be deleted. Google scholar and JSTOR searches indicate there is sufficient sourcing on this topic to warrant an article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the specific event, and resultant deaths were of considerable trauma for the whole of Australia at the time, and this list has nothing to specifically existential comparison with other deadly cyclones. Australian weather events in the particular era were nowhere as deadly, or as circumstantially profound as it occurred in the Christmas New Year; also such surprise had been only happened on Darwin when it was bombed during the second world war. Of Australian disasters such as this one, and specifically the deaths, the actual numbers and identification of casualties is of considerable significance due to the length of time to resolve, and the potential for the number to be potentially in actuality never finalised due to suspicions about unidentified and unknown deaths.JarrahTree06:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history. The number death is a particularly contentious and prey to misinformation and conspiracy. This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere. The reference list could be expanded to support it better.--Tenniscourtisland (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history." This might be an argument for the notability of the main article on the storm itself (and even then, it's not really...it's the sources we have about it), but not for this list. "This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere." Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. This also rings a bit hollow since you're the creator and main contributor of this article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note:I removed the prod because sources are available and deletion is not a cleanup tool) The deaths involved with Cyclone Tracy has resulted in multiple government/coroner inquiries, with names added and removed at various points in time over the last 50 years. The list has changed each time the inquiries were completed so it may require restructuring to show each change deletion is not the way to improve this article. Every person and every change can be referenced, thoug some sources will be paper sourcing which is held in Northern Territory Library requiring on the ground sources. Gnangarra12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my one is bigger than yours doesnt constitute deletion reasons either. Cyclone Tracy was avery unique cyclone, in timing, size, and intensity. Gnangarra12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the overall topic of the accounting for all the deaths might be noteworthy, it's already covered at the main article. This is just a context-less list of names and ages of the dead, which runs afoul of WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There's been a long tradition of not keeping lists like this, especially from natural disasters, and this one is no different. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTMEMORIAL is really all there is to say here. Tragic, horrific, but not a reason to list every name. Worldwide daily traffic accident deaths are the equivalent of loading up 6 A380s and flying them into the gound at top speed. We don't list them all. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and just common sense. The quality of the information is never going to be that great; it's always going to be "... that we know about" once all the unsourced entries are struck, and thus incomplete. Deaths of notable persons and those whose deaths became notable through extended coverage can be mentioned in the main article, but sadly or not, large numbers of deaths are routine and expected when tropical storms hit, and the individual deaths are very rarely of note. Mangoe (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFILM. Previously at AfD in 2006, the article claims that the film has "garnered major media coverage and was screened at numerous local and international film festivals to great response". No actual sources to confirm this. No sources were provided at the previous AfD. The best claim to notability is being a finalist at Australian Effects & Animation Festival (AEAF): [3]. NFILM doesn't mention being a finalist as an indication of notability, only a major award win. Even if this was counted towards notability (which I'm not), it wouldn't be enough on its own. Suggesting redirection to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources are kind of slow going since the bulk were done in the early to mid 2000s, but I'm finding evidence that this did get some coverage back in the day. I found some coverage of the film in The Age - the overall article was about SW fandom but the film is covered in some depth. I did find a copy of the fan magazine on Lulu, but you have to pay for it. I'm leaning towards this being notable - at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere because the sources that I'm finding tend to focus on it as one of the best examples of Star Wars fan film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)14:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge: I've added a source for I-CON's audience award (but that is not in itself neither sufficient nor likely to be overwhelmingly significant). It does not appear in Will Brooker's "Using the Force" (2002) despite what GBooks suggests. I'd take an actual review on theforce.net (non-forum) but there doesn't seem to be one. At best it looks like it could be a weak keep, but it's not there yet. Of the current sources, the Otero&Redondo book is a short descriptive para and has no independent analysis/review. Nor do the The Age stories. I can't read the Herald Sun article but it appears likely to be similar (?). I'm seeing very few hits for "Fan Films Quarterly", and not clear to me if they should be treated as an RS, and how much weight should be given to their opinion even if they are. La Muy's praise is limited to stating it has (GTranslated) "a more than successful setting". Datebook is a short but solid entry in a listicle by a freelancer, but it's currently the only thing which is solid. I've taken a stab at a merge here. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alisontalk04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [4], and some analysis here [5] and here [6]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Run of the mill everyday person that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC) The person doesn't pass the threshold for having their own article and despite having considered acceptable red ir or mrge target, there's not quite a right one. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I'm open to redirect to Mortification (band) if there isn't a consensus to straight up delete, but I request it be DELETE and redirect so it doesn't get re-spawned into an article of its own single handedly by an editor down the road. Graywalls (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom. Current sourcing is stuff that can't be used for notability, like band's own page, facebook, youtube. Cannot tell if this guy passes any of the WP:NMUSICIAN checks either such as charting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whelp. There's lots of stuff about the bands he's in/been in, but little about him. I suspect there's probably print mentions in magazines or newspapers, but that's going to be difficult to dig through.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless something establishes him notable for himself, I say he's not notable. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. from WP:INHERITORGGraywalls (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's why I'm not counting that coverage of the bands he's been in, because that would be more appropriate for the requisite articles. I do see that an HM interview is referenced, but not cited, in the article. I'll try and see if I can access that. If it's an interview of "him", that would help towards individual notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6:, found it. here I think interview with the subject can be used to verify information about the subject but obviously, words from the subject is not independent, so I question its value for conferring notability, which requires secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability for musician (I can't find any traces of a major award)Tesleemah (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO#6. Prominent member of Mortification, Paramaecium and Horde (only member). The later is an obvious merge target if people want to ignore the notability guidelines which seems to be the norm these days. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Every band Sherlock has been in is definitely notable, no question. But, and I was surprised at this, so far it appears there's one source, mentioned above, that is about him specifically rather than a band he's part of. Horde was a one-man-band in studio, true, but that's technically separate and any info about that would be duplicated between the band article and this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So totally different to how you characterized it above. So let's look at what it actually says, "unless they have demonstrated individual notability" such as by being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." which directly satisfies the relevant SNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's circular. You're saying that they're independently notable because of the bands that they're in and thus should have their own article, and so, because they should have their own article, they're notable apart from those bands.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mortification (band). He was in multiple bands, but the article on Mortification is the only one with any meaningful information on him and it seems to be his most prominent role, with a lot of the sources that discuss him mentioning that as his most notable aspect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose that redirect. There are pages of search results with RS coverage about his work in Horde. Horde also was comprised solely of Sherlock for the studio recording. There is plenty of information about him that could go into that article if it was developed more. Plus, there's also a lot of coverage of Revulsed. And that's not to mention his work in Paramaecium (which he was a member of longer than Mortification) and Deliverance. There's too many significant bands that could be the target of a redirect. If one was to be prioritized, Horde would be the most reasonable, imo, because it was a solo project.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about del for now, but just create redirect later or discuss it in one one of the target page? It's not like it takes more than a few secs to make a redirect. Graywalls (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why delete. We have a verified passing of a notability guide, and if you choose to pretend that doesn't count we have a good alternative to deletion and no one has raised any pressing BLP issues there is no actual justification for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would his solo project be redirected? I can get pages of results discussing Horde, including in multiple books. And that's the only solo project of his. I'd argue that it's equally a possible redirect target as Mortification.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, there's only a singular source, and at that an interview, about Sherlock himself. Plenty of coverage for his bands, including Horde. To my regret, then, I'm going to go with delete here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still not seeing a consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mortification (band) as an ATD. As per the discussion above, this is really not very easy. Horde_(band) would be an alternative target for redirection and I'd argue a better one except for the current votes for Mortification, which at least ensures a solid result from this very fluid AfD more likely! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
