Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:DSA WP:AUSDEL

Purge server cache

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

• adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
• removing closed AFDs.
• removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

• tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Australia}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Australia}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

See also: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

This list is also included in the general list of deletion debates related to Oceania.

Contents 1 Ongoing deletion debates 1.1 Upfunk Creek 1.2 PAIN, University of Queensland 1.3 The University Computer Club 1.4 Rum Jungle (band) 1.5 Peter Taylor (Mayor) 1.6 Huu Trinh 1.7 List of Australian scientists 1.8 Allegations of Australian apartheid

[edit] Ongoing deletion debates

Deletion debates culled from WP:AFD and WP:MFD

[edit] Upfunk Creek

Upfunk Creek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Band fails WP:BAND in that they have to date won one local council music competition and published their music on myspace.com. Garrie 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Garrie 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PAIN, University of Queensland

PAIN, University of Queensland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable student association.Garrie 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable as above.Garrie 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. one of hundreds of clubs at the university. Rimmeraj 05:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The University Computer Club

The University Computer Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Initially prodded for deletion as a non-notable club, the original concern was:If there is a cite for actually being the first [organised personal computer user group in the world], then it should be kept. An additional reference was added here and the prod tag removed; however, I believe it is a primary source that really doesn't satisfy the original prod concern. A quick search yielded no secondary sources to support the claims of notability in the article. UnfriendlyFire 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for speciousness. It claims to be the first organised personal computer user group in the world, yet there is no verification given for this claim. Additionally, the term 'personal computer' may not have been in use in 1974, at the club's inception, as the MITS Altair 8800 of 1975 is arguably the world's first true PC. Eddie.willers 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I won't vote, because I haven't looked for sources, but this is clearly a case that I believe shows the importance of sources. Sources related to the subject are entirely acceptable, but not to determine notability (establishing if they are indeed the first). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• DavydMadeley: I think the person personal is a misnomer. The club was founded in 1974, as its own records will attest. The first computer owned by the club was an Alpha Micro AM1000, but before that the club was formed to get time on the University's PDP-6 (the first PDP-6 sold outside of DEC: http://www.ultimate.com/phil/pdp10/pdp6-serials). The club has had a long and rich history in Western Australian computing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.56.15.217 (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2007. — 203.56.15.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• We haven't as yet found good sources to back the claim to be the first personal computer club in the world. However, we have evidence of the club's significant contribution to the Western Australian computing community from 1974 - extremely early for a computing club, and before computing facilities were available to the public - onwards. Our silver jubilee award and other documentation as to club projects on do exist and could be scanned to provide veracity as to the club's significance. After such efforts would the article be suited for inclusion, or should we just back this article up and move it to another site? I also take issue with the club history not being "credible", as it was prepared at the club's expense by an academic, albeit one with association to the club. Grahame 17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Grahame, unfortunately he is not independent in this matter, regardless of his credibility in his own field. It is primary sourced material which cannot lend weight to claims regarding notability. It would be original research to review sufficient Computer Club histories to categorically say, this one is the oldest one remaining in existence. If someone independent of this club does that research then we have independent works which establish notability.Garrie 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ATT. No independent sources given, no sources for their claims. RGTraynor 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no nontrivial independent reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of independent sources. Unfortunately - the clubs' own records don't lend weight to notability, independent coverage does. Garrie 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rum Jungle (band)

Rum Jungle (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet WP:BAND as it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the band itself Garrie 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator, reasons above.Garrie 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No establishment of notibility. No sources at all. Not verifiable.--Dacium 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Taylor (Mayor)

Peter Taylor (Mayor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable Mayor of beautiful but otherwise unremarkable Local Government Area of Queensland, Australia Mattinbgn/ ^talk 09:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As a mayor of a shire he does not meet notability requirements at WP:BIO.Garrie 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huu Trinh

Huu Trinh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A stub for over a year with no other notability than being sentenced to death in Vietnam. Can't see how this fulfills WP:BIO Strangnet 11:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Doesn't fulfill WP:BIO Gekedo 11:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- and expand. Perhaps not quite as well known as Schapelle Corby, however the article subject has been the subject of several secondary sources that are reliable as per the criterion at WP:BIO. See the Google News archive. A short article requires expansion, not deletion. -- Longhair\^talk 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Nine sources, some look duplicated, on Google News seems a bit low for the subject of several secondary sources. --Strangnet 11:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough source material to create an encyclopedic article, all the coverage is trivial. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Longhair - I'll do a Factiva search and see what I can come up with. Alexander Downer has mentioned him a fair bit in the past as a person convicted of a crime overseas: he's had better luck with the Vietnamese than the Singaporeans in having death sentences commuted, which means he hasn't got as much coverage as say Van Tuong Nguyen. The article is also part of the List of Australians in international prisons so it should be kept. JRG 13:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I am not sure the crime is notable. I would strongly support the article if the matter were political.DGG 23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep DXRAW 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I can see that you vote Keep to all AfD-nominations you cast a vote in. Should we consider this an april-fools-vote? --Strangnet 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Vietnamese citizen commits run of the mill crime in his country of birth and recieves the usual sentence. I thought we were not a directory, but there is nothing other than directory information so far (name, crime, sentence).Garrie 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australian scientists

List of Australian scientists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Like the recently deleted Australian musicians list this list is too broad in scope to every be complete (WP:LIST); there are no inclusion criteria, a look over the list shows that it includes, physical, biological and social scientists,; as well as people that aren't really scientists - like engineers and architects; this could run into thousands of people. There are good categories for all types of Australia scientists; delete. --Peta 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Peta.--cj | talk 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on the condition that Peta include every one of the people on this list in a category. JRG 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The only categories the people included were missing is births/living/deaths.... --Peta 09:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. Definite delete now. JRG 09:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. I am not convinced that this list is unmaintainable. Although there are many Australian scientists, there is not so many notable enough to have articles that the list becomes an unmaintainable one. As for redundancy with the categorization scheme... well I'll agree that the list could be sorted by something else than the alphabet, chronologically by birth might be a better idea, but since each entry has a note of what science the person worked with, and when the person lived, I will call the list annotated, and as such not redundant. I feel that the list passes two criteria on the WP:LIST guideline, it is informative by virtue of the annotations, and it serves a purpose as a navigational aid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nomOo7565 18:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above, plus I forsee problems with the definition of "scientist". For example, at least some of the engineers/inventors on this list are not scientists (technology != science), many other problems with who ought to be considered a scientist are possible. Pete.Hurd 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly impossible to maintain. There are literally thousands of names added to a theoretical complete list every year, even ignoring definitional concerns. --Haemo 02:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too broad an inclusion criteria. Try List of Australian organic chemists, List of Australian research botanists... Garrie 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Australian apartheid

Allegations of Australian apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Poorly sourced. One source merely warns of a potential new apartheid. Another looks at the influence Australia may have had on South African apatheid 55 years ago. Also, rather oddly named. —Ashley Y 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete —Ashley Y 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that notable information could be deleted within two days because it isn't well sourced enough. This is clearly notable article, because Australia's policies inspired those of South Africa-- this is in the historical record, too. Even if it was 55 years ago, it's notable for two reasons:

1. Encyclopedias are supposed to cover the past in just as much detail as the present, when it comes to politics.
2. The allegation is still used against Australian society today, even though it's blatantly false in my opinion. (this is comparible to the allegation of economic apartheid in the United States. to me it is blatantly false, but it is a politically notable accusation given the history involved.)

It is hypocrisy to delete this article and keep the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. So, because this is notable, the answer is to add to it, and source it, just like any other article. We shouldn't delete it because it stifles a potentially notable article from emerging. Keep.--Urthogie 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Judging by Urthogie's comments, it seems the name is at least wrong. I'm not sure what the title of the article would be, but "Allegations of Australian apartheid" definitely seems odd, if this is basically a historical issue. I'm not sure what the sources are for any article though; I guess the question is whether a person should be able to make several articles and then say they'll source them later. My experience with article deletions is limited, so I don't really know. Weak Delete --Mackan79 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should vote for a move, then (something which is typically discussed on the talk page, not on the AFD).--Urthogie 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see where we'd move it. I think others are right that the material is already covered elsewhere. Mackan79 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Garrie 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back to parent article - it's not that large as to be individually notable, because it's not that widespread an accusation (I'm sure there'd be more sources if it was widespread). Garrie 00:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Garrie, it's two days old, this article.--Urthogie

Which is why I said merge it back to where it came from. Not Delete. It should have stayed at Allegations of apartheid until it was bursting out of it's little section - not popped over to a new article as soon as you found one real reference and two tangential ones. It was a stretch for me not to say something along the lines of what Cyberjunkie said below. It is interesting to claim that a country which at one time had forced miscegenation, might also be alleged to hold apartheid laws. Garrie 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, this is covered better by White Australia policy. --Dhartung | Talk 02:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, biased article.--cj | talk 02:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have an article on the White Australia policy and Stolen Generation amongst others. We should use the names already in use by scholars and others in the country concerned rather than inappropriately use terms in use in another country. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 06:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Peta, this is not a vote. Please give a reason. JRG 08:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, clearly a biased fork of the parent article. Lankiveil 09:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep I wonder at some possible POV in the opinions that it doesn't matter because it was long ago. The stage to take a section into a new article is an editing consideration. I think that stubs are a good way to build articles, and the only reason for deleting this is if it were intended to remove allstubbs from WP. I do not think there is the least consensus on thatDGG 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't that what's old doesn't matter but that the material should be discussed under a more accurate title, as it seems to already be. Mackan79 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Absolute nonsense; biased fork. michael ^talk 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (1) No real content in the article and (2) Pure rubbish, the Australian government is EXTREMELY supportive of the Aboriginal minority +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)