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:
Article reads like an advertisement and does not cite any sources that are not connected to the subject. I could not find any in-depth discussion of the company by reliable, independent sources. Omnigrade (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The government database entry that is the main source for this article lists five sources. The first two [1][2] are routine newspaper announcements that do not contribute towards notability. I can't access any of the three book sources, but from the pages I can preview they all seem to just provide listings of shipwrecks and their coordinates, and therefore don't contribute towards notability either. I couldn't find any additional sources on Trove or elsewhere. MCE89 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look at sources and make a judgement. I have just restored the version I worked on, with four sources. Using ProQuest via WP:TWL will show the fulltext of relevant newspaper articles. The sign up is instant and seamless, you need 6 months/500 edits/10 in last month for access I think. Try searching "Quintessential Equity". From memory, the oldest article from The Australian in 2013 is probably superior to any used thus far, including the fifteen suggested in the previous AfD. It would be great if editors could quote bits of NCORP or content policies in this discussion. I don't know how I would be able to understand the formation, investment strategies and development of those strategies of a company just by reading "routine coverage" in independent, reliable newspaper sources. Unfortunately I don't have any more time to devote to this process, but I would be wary of the analysis previously provided by Robert McClenon.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Delete in previous discussion). While TNT was appropriate for the prior version, the new version is acceptable and has national coverage in Australia. 🄻🄰13:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk)
WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet the general notability guideline, and does not meet the notability guidelines for companies. The claim to notability surrounds its involvement with human rights abuses, ending in deaths, in Indonesia. This breaks policy because just because the company was the subject of a (probably not) notable event, does not make it notable. No inherited notability. Next, This company does not have WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED, and the sources don't seem to be WP:RS, but I haven't done a deep dive. No other coverage besides this stuff, where it isn't the main story. This company isn't notable. More, the sources are also from 2011, pretty out of date. We gotta delete this AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the existing DAB page. I don't see how this would be useful as a redirect, and while it's true that they are primarily known as the developers of Hollow Knight, most current discourse is focused on Silksong, which makes choosing a single target difficult. Toadspike[Talk]13:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hollow Knight but oppose SALTing: the article could be opened in the near future assuming Silksong gains them further fame and more publications directly cover the developer. ―Howard • 🌽3310:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit04:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. The TV show he was on, Round the Twist is notable, but his role in it for two seasons is not. Checked Google and ProQuest which yielded 4 hits (cast lists and passing mentions, plus "contributes a wicked March Hare and terrific Humpty Dumpty" in a 2009 review in The Age). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this mention in a 1978 edition of The Canberra Times, but it's not quite SIGCOV in my view. I also found this mention in The Australian Library Journal and a few sentences about the journal in this issue of Labour History, but again neither are quite SIGCOV. I thought the discussion in this book looked promising, but like most of what I found, the relevant chapter turned out to be written by one of the journal's editors. It looks like The Push from the Bush was part of a larger project encompassing several journals and volumes called Australians: A Historical Library that was launched to mark the bicentennial, and that wider project is definitely notable, but we don't have an article about it that we could merge/redirect this to. I'll keep looking for additional sources, but at this point my !vote would be delete. MCE89 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any specific sources you found? I would be very happy if this article were kept, so please do share what you found in your search. More than willing to change to keep if there are sources I missed. MCE89 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was flagged since 2007, although the citations template was removed without improvement [3]. There is only one source on the page and that is just a reference to playing a song on a radio show. Searches show almost nothing. I found a reference to a saying attributed to them (wrongly), and some primary sourcing but I cannot find any independent reliable secondary sourced coverage of this non notable band. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support draftify as WP:ATD. There is some coverage, but only mentioning the fact that he is a young player making his debut in the Australian Cup. Svartner (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I fully agree with the BLP1E, but I think that the subject also exhibits high potential for notability in the (somewhat) near future given his age. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! However, this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. If/once the subject receives more coverage, an article about the subject would be justified. However, it's too early as of right now, and so deletion would be the best course of option. The article can be easily undeleted in the future. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The coverage is not sufficient for GNG. There is a case that this will increase (although hard to be sure how soon), and the page creater is active and !voted here, so it seems unlikely it will be abandoned if sources arise. This seems like an acceptable ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Keep or Draftify. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I've removed the ref to theroar as it is clearly fan-written SPS. YOUNGATH sets a higher requirement for coverage than is supplied by SMH, and anyway that story appears to be BLP1E. If he garners more attention having now signed, the article can be moved back to mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't look like the sources are significant coverage, and while I don't know if this recreated version is significantly different from the previously deleted version, it seems that the previous deletion nomination closed with the same finding and it is unlikely that much changed. silviaASH(inquire within)12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following sources seem to be coverage significant enough, considering he has been featured in DNA magazine and made headlines in AVN and XBIZ:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of coverage in digitised newspapers about her from her time in Mamma Mia from 2010-2012, certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. She probably also meets WP:NACTOR / WP:CREATIVE with her other performances and her nomination for the Africa Movie Academy Awards for design work on From a Whisper. I'll add sources to the article (and check out the existing ones). No, please let's not Speedy Delete articles like this - there is clear indication of notability in the text of this article; the refs could be improved, but that's the case with lots of WP articles, and is not a reason to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Are you basing your !vote on the fake information in the article? I looked at your contributions and the last 7 edits are keep votes for AfDs? It looks like you believe that the article is fine but the refs need to be improved, but in reality the refs are fake and fail verification. She clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. You could quibble about WP:NACTOR, but only because those standards are so much lower which is unfair and should be fixed. In any case, per WP:CONLEVEL such an WP:SNG cannot overrule WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm basing my Keep !vote on what I can see in digitised newspapers (which are also available to WP editors through the Wikipedia Library). If you have looked at my contributions, you will have seen that I put a kot of time and effort into improving articles at AfD, and as I said, I will add sources to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Hm, OK, it was just a bit weird to see 7 keep !votes in a row. I think I am more deletionist than you are. With BLPs I am always extra careful because a bad BLP can be far more harmful than a bad article about a Pokemon. I checked the Wikipedia Library (9 results for their name between doublequotes) and I don't see any sources that can be used (a name in a list is not WP:INDEPTH). Do you have access to the source I mentioned on the talkpage? Polygnotus (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7 Keep !votes at 20-40 minute intervals - during which I searched for sources. I don't just !vote without checking, and if I don't find much or anything in theway of sources,I !vote delete, redirect or merge. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen You are at 71.2% keep and I am at 87.0% delete Probably because we use AfD for different purposes; I use it to get rid of the trash while you perhaps use it to find things worth saving. Both are valid. Polygnotus (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus:, I don't think attempting to discredit someone's vote based on anything OTHER than the merit of their contention is appropriate. Their keep/delete ration or how fast they voted does not discount their !vote.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Agreed, and I didn't. As I said, I just happened to notice it and it was remarkable enough to remark upon. In the future, please be more careful before writing something like that, because implying that someone did something they clearly did not is not appropriate, especially in the context of potential false allegations of bad intentions without evidence. Polygnotus (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very careful and I wrote exactly what I meant. While veiled, you asking if they based their vote on fake information was insinuating they lacked competence. You then proceeded to discuss their voting history instead of their contention. I do not agree with the !keep vote, but they are allowed to have it. You are free to address their contention, but saying things like "it's just weird" then sharing someone's AfD stats is about conduct, not content. If you have issue with my comment, please address at WP:ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to run to ANI every time someone makes a mistake. ANI is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. You just made a mistake. I can just point it out and move on. Polygnotus (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article, adding sources and info. I clipped the sources from Newspapers.com, so I hope they will be visible to editors who don't have a subscription. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In a 3-decade career, this person has done one national tour, one ensemble role on Broadway, and a few short-running local productions, mostly in smaller parts. Her film career is even less impressive (being nominated for one local design award for a foreign art film does not make someone notable as a designer). Even though she got some press over the decades in local newspapers, she is a pretty WP:MILL actor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority in unsourced or primary sourced, so I intended to improve the article but very much struggled to find good secondary sources. The school does not seem to fit notability guidelines. -- NotCharizard🗨02:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not finding much through online searches. Interestingly, there was an Australian Youth Theatre in the 1940s in Sydney. I think it may be necessary to look in books and journals that aren't online for more info on the various branches and names of this organisation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I closed this as a Delete but a trusted editor requested that I relist so I'm accommodating that request. Please consider their additions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
