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:
WP:NACTOR is a lot stricter than the last AfD years ago. It requires "significant roles in multiple" shows/films. It appears that Burbrook has only had 1 verifiable major role in Blue Heelers. She doesn't meet WP:BIO more broadly due to a lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Two significant roles in notable productions is good for NACTOR. Multiple examples of coverage in independent reliable sources. Targeted payback nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Two significant roles in notable productions is good for NACTOR. Focus of coverage in major newspaper (independent reliable source). National Library of Australia has a box of cuttings. AFI Award nominee. Targeted payback nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was draftified after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England in April 2025. Only one source from after that date has been added, [1] which basically just repeats that no tour seems to be happening. Which leaves us with an article on a 2025 tour of England dealing with, er, one game in Las Vegas. Yet the article still proudly proclaims "The 2025 Jillaroo tour of England is a proposed tour of England by Australia women's national rugby league team in October and November 2025. The tour is scheduled to see the inaugural edition of the Women's rugby league Ashes contested." as its lead, even though basically nothing of this is true or likely to happen. Fram (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main issue last time was that the article stated the tour was definitely happening which was admitted to be a problem and why the article was redraftified. The article has since been partly rewriten to state that it is a proposed tour with both the lead being altered and a post-Vegas section to further explain why. Article is sufficiently cited, especially now the article is about a proposed tour, and has passed AfC twice. Mn1548 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was just one of the many issues with the article raised in the original AfD, and the article now still calls it "scheduled" in the lead section, like I quote above, as if it is nearly certain to happen. It also, already in the lead, repeats the debunked claim of this being part of the Ashes. It still treats the Vegas match as part of the tour of England. As far as I can tell, hardly any issue that lead to the draftification has been solved. Fram (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Repeats the debunked claim of this being part of the Ashes. It still treats the Vegas match as part of the tour of England."
Im sorry, when did this become a debunked claim? Or an issue brought up in the previous AfD?
Ref 5 (RFL) "We have the Ashes Tours against Australia in 2025, which of course begins with a historic fixture in Las Vegas for England Women against the Jillaroos".
Ref 14 (IRL) "The Las Vegas fixture will count as part of the historic Ashes series between the two nations, which will continue when England travel to Australia at the end of the 2025 season."
Vegas being test 1 of the Ashes is also eluded to in Ref 13 aswell.
Further, what's wrong with "scheduled"? This tour has been scheduled in the IRL international calendar since 2023 (see Ref 3). Something scheduled isn't a certainty, hence why the lead was rewrote to state it is a proposed tour in lieu of no confirmed fixtures.Mn1548 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No sources have treated the Las Vegas game as part of the Ashes, no one has said we are one up or down in the series, it is not a thing, despite initial hopes by the organisers. Ref 14 above talks about England touring Australia, not the other way round, which indicates the level of scheduling this tour ever had. If reliable, independent sources don´t treat the Vegas game, now that it has happened, as part of the Adhes nor as part of an Australian tour in England, then neither should we. The lack of new sources since the AfD shows that nothing realky has changed which would warrant recreation. Fram (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguing as if the remaining fixtures have been cancelled. If they had, your argument would have merit. Re ref 14 being a tour of Australia, subsequent references have stated a host change, that doesn't invalidate the entire article just because one thing has changed. LibStar's argument below is valid that Wikipedia doesn't do proposed events, which is why I'm changing my stance to weak keep as I still think the article is sufficiently notable regardless. Your argument ignores alot on info in referenced sources. Mn1548 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm arguing as if the remaining fixtures have never been really scheduled in the first place, there were just vague plans but nothing concrete. Fram (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title "2025 Jillaroo tour of England" is not a logical search term for the Las Vegas 2025 event though. Fram (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't demonstrate the notability of this road. One source is Google Maps, and the other is from the local MP. Searching online I couldn't find much to indicate that this road is notable enough for an article. – numbermaniac07:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's the odd source lurking around – a school yearbook with a little detail in for example, and he played for Sandy Bay in Hobart. The Allanby name in general crops up quite a bit as well. But there's nothing in depth enough to suggest keeping here for me that I can find, although I'm not great with Trove so someone else may find something. There is, however, an obvious redirect target at List of Tasmanian representative cricketers#Players whose debut was between 1969 and 1985, which, as a WP:ATD, would be the normal course of action for cricketers. This preserves the page history and allows for easy expansion if sources do become available, which happens Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SPORTSPERSON and GNG. No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Article consists of only a few sentences, with minimal content and poor sourcing. Subject appears not to meet the notability criteria for sports figures. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify... I guess? He had a very long term racing career and competed in several Bathursts, which is a major accomplishment. There's also a bit of coverage about the circuit he created. However, very little of the sources I can find have full length stories about him, although there are a LOT of passing mentions. I feel that if more digging was done into offline sources, he could be notable. Additionally, I've found two sources that could potentially be used: the first one ([2]) I have absolutely no idea what it's talking about but it seems like mildly decent coverage, and I found a second ([3]) article which looks good on the outside but I can't access because it is pay walled. Hoping some V8/ATCC editors will be able to improve this. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to meet notability requirements; it relies solely on two citations from YouTube and IMDb, and the Reception section only covers audience reception from IMDb. No results were found during my attempt to search for reliable sources. SleepyRedHair (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth or secondary sourcing has been identified to support the general notability of the channel. Google News yields no mentions by reliable sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)
Keep: this is a perfect example of the problem that removal of the WP:NAFL guideline is causing, when it intersects the black hole of Australian online coverage from 1956 to the 2010s. I've expanded and added what I can find. Like with all of these AfDs, if it isn't deemed enough, then redirection to a list must be the outcome, not deletion, with retention of all categories on the redirect. The-Pope (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As above, there are no available online newspaper archives for WA during this period, which would be where his career would have been covered. Common sense would say SIGCOV exists for an interstate rep/premiership player. This clipping added by The-Pope certainly "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Jevansen (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some sources, so hopefully meets GNG. Would be easier to show if I had the appropriate Rugby League Weeks at hand. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't establish the notability of this road. A Google search online only found 1 blog article, which isn't enough to demonstrate notability. – numbermaniac08:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely now the deceleration is over, she fails WP:GNG and violates WP:RECENT. Only notable for a few months. Possibly redirect to a page that works like on election results for the Federal Division of Bradfield for the 2025 Election or Delete. Unlike Kapterian, Boele had big media coverage and was the Independent candidate the media talked about and had interviews on 7:30 more than once. If a redirect to the results in New South Wales & Bradfield isn't a good redirect due to initially contesting North Sydney, I would just suggest Delete. Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Kapterian was an unsuccessful candidate with minimal lasting coverage. Media attention was limited and mostly tied to the election period, with no clear signs of enduring notability. Unlike Boele, she wasn’t a central figure in the race. Nothing indicates significant coverage. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place00:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems sensible to delete this article as candidates rarely get their own articles as per WP:POLITICIAN, but it is only useful to keep the article if she does run in the next election, or consider draftifying the article. But I would advise waiting until the writ is returned on — presumably — 9 July to see if Kapterian happens to challenge the result in Bradfield in a court of law. Nicolette Boele had more notability as she had running the previous election so people could know her policies better and owing to the fact that she achieved a massive swing against Paul Fletcher, making the seat marginal. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerty123M I could request un deletion. I think that a lawsuit might only triggers a By Election. If she were to become an MP, I would request un deletion and I am sure it would undoubtedly be approved. I think this result is finished. You do make a good point though. Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to BWC. A JSTOR search turned up reliable sources including Becker (2007) [7], Meier (2006) [8], Becker (2008) [9], which confirm that JACKSNNZ is an informal coordination group focused narrowly on BWC-related issues. This is best merged with the main BWC article to prevent fragmentation (WP:CFORK). HerBauhaus (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. As always, filmmakers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, this was referenced primarily to her films' entries in IMDb (which is not a notability-assisting source) .... Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this.
Adding other sources found in the article similarly lack coverage about her and a search failed to find anything better.
She unfortunately very recently passed away but that is only sourced to her former employers tribute, thus lacking independence. Other than reproducing the WIFT statement her death does not appear to have generated any independent coverage in the press. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject fails to meet the GNG criteria because it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth and detail, as required for verification. Additionally, the subject does not meet the notability criteria for mixed martial artists(NMMA), as it is not ranked in the top ten in the world or holding any title from a top-tier promotion, such as the UFC. Sources that announce the fight and fight results are considered routine sport report and can NOT be used to contribute to the GNG requirements. Cassiopeiatalk21:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By adding this article, there is more information available on Wikipedia, therefore improving the quality of Wikipedia. All sources used are reliable; however, they do not discuss the subject in depth and detail. The subject may not meet various criterias however the policies and guidelines principle Wikipedia:Ignore all rules states if rules prevent the improvement of Wikipedia, then these rules must be ignored. However, @Cassiopeia you are much more experienced than most of us, so please respond? Rostam27 (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UFC is not a reliable nor independent reliable sources. Reliable sources are those from newspapers, reputable media and books. Andy sources that related/connected/associated with the subject are considered not independent. Sherdog is a reliable, independent source but Sherdog or Tapology fighters' fight database can not be used to contribute to the GNG requirements as it is considered routine sport record/report. Thus subject fails both GNG and NMMA requirements to have a page in mainspace. Cassiopeiatalk22:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who nominated the page for deletion. The page was moved to draft space, stating that the subject did not meet the General Notability Guidelines (GNG) or the Notability of Mixed Martial Arts (NMMA) criteria and will remain in draft space for further improvement. However, the editor recreated the page in the main space, which led to its nomination for deletion. I am an Australian and have been a regular MMA editor on Wikipedia for many years, so there is no anti-Australian bias here; the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nevertheless, as an Australian, I fully support Salkild and am pleased that he won the fight at UFC 316 this morning. Stay safe. Cassiopeiatalk23:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we should dratify or at least save the details from this page first. He's already 2-0 in the UFC. There's a good chance with 1-2 more wins he will be a solid UFC fighter with notability. That way when we restore the page to mainspace, we will already have a base to work with that will save time. - ImcdcContact01:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant independent coverage, no indication of meeting WP:ANYBIO, and he's a long way from meeting WP:NMMA. He's not ranked in the top 100 and has never beaten a fighter ranked in the top 150. It's unlikely another win or two will vault him into the top 10--and that's assuming the WP:CRYSTALBALL is right in predicting he'll win his next several fights (which will likely take close to a year to happen). I don't see a reason to draftify it since much has to happen for him to be notable and thus will require a rewrite. If the time comes, then an editor should have no problem getting a copy of this version of the article. Papaursa (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not 'notable' enough? Salkilld is one of Australia's brightest UFC prospects and a former Eternal MMA champion. Yes, this article needs to be edited with the addition of improved sources, but deleting it would be ridiculous. WikiGeek05 (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not ridiculous. There is only way to measure notability on this encyclopedia it's via our agreed guidelines. Currently the subject fails them. "prospects" or "Eternal MMA champion" doesn't help making him notable. The Eternal MMA promotion is local and not a wiki notable promotion. Im confident that if Salkilld continues to win, he will either get a bunch of significant coverage or reach top world rankings (Highest and current world lightweight ranking achieve according to Fightmatrix is #116 [10]). Lekkha Moun (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This Article relies so much on unreliable sources and no improvement have been made, I was thinking I could find a source with independent coverage but I couldn’t find, The subject has contributed in many field of entertainment yet fails to have WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO, fails WP:GNG per no particularly article that speaks about him independently on multiple secondary sources, most of the citations are either usercreated space under a music website where he has listed his musical works. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis that he is held by National Library of Australia and Moravian Gallery, both important and discerning public institutions. I've added a few sources for that. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the references, I don't see either of those covering Stejskal in detail. Excerpts: NL: "and a collection of theatre posters designed by Josef Stejskal (through the Esso Project)" SL (caption only): "above: Josef Stejskal, State Library staff member and designer of theatre posters" Additionally, they are not "independent of the subject". C67906:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and certainly coverage is in passing. However, I do note that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals 4 b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Also I don't see why the National Library report would be other than "independent of the subject" since he had no association with him when they collected his works. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to update: have also added info about artist holdings in National Gallery and State Library of NSW. Some acquired by public collections, some donated by third parties, some donations of artist. To me it establishes there's notability in relevant Aus art, library, theatre circles, but I acknowledge that sources remain thin. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the recently added sources help him pass WP:GNG. I haven't found any meaningful source, just databases. FromCzech (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like he's also held by the Library of Congress[11], but these are archival collections rather than art collections, so the inclusion is less useful for notability. Also, I'm not sure where we'd source any additional yet basic biographical information. Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on NCREATIVE, like others above. The source cited for the National Library of Australia claim specifically describes their purchase of his posters among "some notable acquisition of pictorial material" [13], which I think reinforces that these institutions have deliberately sought out his work for being somehow significant. Toadspike[Talk]22:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Ref 3 FilmInk is a press release. Ref 7 Sydney Times is a portion of same. Ref 5 Filmink is PR from MINA, a partner. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited from their ambassadors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is indeed notable, going from strength to strength, and has some big names associated with it. Films made on mobile phones are becoming more common. It is possible and even likely that at least some of the emerging filmmakers who feature in this festival will go on to become major filmmakers in the future. As you can see, I have added more detail and many more citations since the deletion was proposed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well... keep in mind that coverage is going to be what establishes notability here. The festival may have big names associated with it, but that notability won't be inherited. I've found what often establishes notability are things like say, Variety writing about the competition.
At first glance what stands out is that a lot of the sourcing is either a press release or heavily based on one. For example, this FilmInk source looks to be either a full reprint of a press release or so closely reworded that it might as well be one. This one by The South Sydney Herald is a local paper covering local people. The issue with local sources is that it's so routine for local papers to cover "local person does good" that it can be seen as kind of weak (at best) or even routine. Then there's this from IF Magazine, which is a routine database event listing.
Right now the page is so crammed full of press releases, routine announcements, and local coverage that it's difficult to pick out exactly what can be used to establish notability. I'm going to do a rundown of the sources on the AfD talk page, as there are so many. I'm not saying that this can't be notable, just that right now it's so stuffed full of unusable and weak sources that it comes across like it's not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)19:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Left a very long note on the talk page. Most of the sources aren't usable and are used to back up very faint claims of notability. There are some potentially usable sources, but there are none that are really solid, slam dunk sources. My recommendation here is to reduce the page to just the basics, using the sources that seem decent, and then judge notability based on that. There's so much unintentional WP:PUFFERY in the article that it really does make this seem non-notable at first glance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)21:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit hard to achieve something per NSPORT and satisfy GNG if you don't play. Simply being the tallest player ever signed in the league isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being unclear. NSPORT, which is concerned with "playing", is no longer a valid guideline for Australian rules footballers. And plenty who "don't play" (in the AFL) meet GNG. Hence your nomination reasoning would've been acceptable 3 or 4 years ago, does not make any sense now. The-Pope (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources exist, but are all published around the same time in September. I don't think this meets notability standards based on WP:BLP1E. The rest are statistics pages that do not make up substantial coverage. -- Reconrabbit18:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. I think this falls under WP:BLP1E – nearly all the quality coverage he received because he got drafted, but that didn't amount to much, so the one event was not significant. Of WikiOriginal-9's four sources, three are about him being drafted and originate from one week in Sept. 2020. The other one is an older 2018 piece that's basically an interview (not independent). Toadspike[Talk]09:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but how is an interview based article in a major newspaper not independent? Independence is related to ownership or a lack of editorial oversight, not just because the article quotes the subject. That's one of the strangest arguments I've ever seen and must be completely discounted by the AFD closer. The-Pope (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
