Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Oceania 2 Ongoing deletion debates 2.1 List of Australian scientists 2.2 Ben Thorn 2.3 Allegations of Australian apartheid 2.4 Scott Anderson (Australian Rules Footballer & Academic) 2.5 Cabramatta black dragons 2.6 Flinders soccer club 2.7 Prosper Nicholas Trebeck 2.8 List of Seven Network slogans 2.9 Ian King 3 New Zealand 3.1 Finda 3.2 Fiona Apanui 4 Elsewhere in Oceania

[edit] Oceania

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Oceania. 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|Oceania}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Oceania}} 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.

Shortcut: WP:DSA WP:AUSDEL

[edit] Ongoing deletion debates

Deletion debates culled from WP:AFD and WP:MFD

[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)

[edit] Ben Thorn

Ben Thorn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Blatant hoax Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, although "Specky Magee" is a genuine publication. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unattributed, putative hoax. Can't find this Ben Thorn, targetting with multiple different facts from article, though there is apparently a well known musician by the same name.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. It's a bit of a giveaway that the creator is Beno93, which probably means he's a 14 year old called Ben (Thorn). Croxley 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a hoax, and not a funny or clever one, either. Booo! Lankiveil 09:44, 30 March 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)

[edit] Scott Anderson (Australian Rules Footballer & Academic)

Scott Anderson (Australian Rules Footballer & Academic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject not notable enough to include on Wikipedia Biting mammal 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly not notable enough as a AFL player and does not even state he is an academic. --Bduke 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as clearly failing biographical requirements. From the creators name also appears to be slightly autobiographical - Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Peripitus. John Vandenberg 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable junior AFL footballer, and looks autobiographical. --Canley 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete surely a joke.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn junior footballerGarrie 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Junior footballer whose article indicates no notability. How a 17-year-old can be considered as an academic is beyond me unless going to school is considered as academic credentials?

Capitalistroadster 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• "one of the greatest players of all time. Anderson is currently playing for Parkdale Vultures AFC U/19's side in the VAFA". Mmhmm. Delete. Lankiveil 09:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete -- unreferenced vanity peice. -- Longhair\^talk 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cabramatta black dragons

Cabramatta black dragons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Anon-removed Prod. I can't find any sources (reliable or otherwise) for a gang of this name, which is perhaps not surprising when dealing with street gangs in general. Obviously there are notable street gangs, but there's nothing that seems to demonstrate that this particular one is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If you're making a PR page for a gang, it's not notable.Cantras 15:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now; if you look at the article 5T, there are some references there that mention the Black Dragons. This is a new article, we should perhaps wait until the authors have finished work on the article before deciding that it has insufficient notability and sources. I'm at least convinced that it isn't a hoax, and that it is a real gang that has attracted the attention of the police and the community. Brianyoumans 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That is to say that of the externally-linked websites (the only thing I can access right at the moment), there's a grand total of one Sydney Morning Herald article saying that "Police are aware of another gang calling itself 'Black Dragon'". Nothing much more about what this particular gang does, and I doubt that's even a non-trivial mention. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google News Archives for "Cabramatta black dragons" see [1] nor does it currently have any articles on them. ABBSCO's Australia New Zealand database has nothing either. The SMH article that mentions them only contains a passing reference. The photos of the gang markings are pretty dreadful as well. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cantras. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 03:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and because Wikipedia is not a hosting provider of trophy pages. Also delete all of the photos by Special:Contributions/Count45. John Vandenberg 10:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable collection of petty thugs. Lankiveil 11:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Flinders soccer club

Flinders soccer club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:PROD by User:Mattinbgn was contested by the article's author, so I'm bringing it here. The club is not notable outside a small university and amateur league soccer circle. There are no secondary sources to create a verifiable article. cj | talk 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - club is just an amateur league one of no particular importance. Far too minor a league for teams to have articles here - Peripitus (Talk) 11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. YechielMan 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete one step of social footy.Garrie 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete although may be worth a passing mention in the Flinders University article. As it plays in an amateur league and has so for its history, it is not worth an article in its own right. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, as the original WP:PROD proposer. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a club in Lower league of regional league system. Matthew_hk tc 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem to be much more than a NN amateur football club. Lankiveil 11:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete and agree with the above that perhaps the club could be included in the Flinders University article. Tangerines 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prosper Nicholas Trebeck

Prosper Nicholas Trebeck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

His only stated claim to notability is having built the first structure in Winchelsea, Victoria, Australia. No proper citations, and one of the "Winchelsea" links is actually to Winchelsea in England. DoorsAjar 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• A bad link is something easily fixed. Editors are human and make mistakes. And I can't seem to find this bad link... -- saberwyn 08:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I was trying to point out improper use of citations--this was listed as source material, so the author should've read it. I take your point, though. The incorrect link is to winchelsea.net. DoorsAjar 08:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Winchelsea, Victoria where he is mentioned, possibly significant and worth note in a history/founding section. I can only find one brief book mention through google books and nothing of significant in any online archives. The town's historical association does not mention him. All that we have to write about is the fact of the hotel... not an article by it self - Peripitus (Talk) 10:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR - excessive reliance on birth/death/marriage certificates. Trebeck hasn't been the source of multiple independant publications - he is mentioned in passing in History of X by local history assocaiations.Garrie 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Pioneers who are political leaders or community leaders can be notable, and the person to build th firt house in a community might well qualify.DGG 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Peripitus --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Peripitus John Vandenberg 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Peripitus (bandwagon vote). Lankiveil 11:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] List of Seven Network slogans

List of Seven Network slogans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced indiscriminate collection of information. Originally {{prod}}ded [2], and subsequently removed [3] w/o comment. Full disclosure: I am the editor who originally {{prod}}ded the article; along with Ed g2s (talk • contribs), I have also repeatedly removed a gallery of fair-use images from the article. [4] & [5]

• Delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support removal of fair-use gallery from article, and deletion of images if not used elsewhere. Weak delete on article, unless some context about the slogans can be provided. -- saberwyn 06:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with more information added and Remove Images - Mike Beckham 06:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. I can foresee list of NBC slogans (American), list of TV Mobile slogans (Singaporean), list of TV3 slogans (Malaysia), or list of TVB slogans (Hong Kong) if this is kept. Oh wait... there's NBC slogans ripe for the picking. Resurgent insurgent 07:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• List of NBC slogans is up for AfD as well. Resurgent insurgent 08:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this was split from the main article, where it made more sense. Don't just delete it because it was split off - this is happening far too frequently and has got to stop. The gallery of logos was kept from a previous AfD and should not be deleted. JRG 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The title of the page indicates this is a list of slogans. Even if we suppose such a list is encyclopedic, I do not see how a gallery of logos is relevant on a page meant for slogans. The slogans are definitely not "critical commentary" on the logos by any interpretation of the term! Resurgent insurgent 10:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as clearly being indiscriminate collection of information. While it may be true and verifyable from reliable sources the subject is not encyclopediac. Even if this were part of another, keepable, article I would advocate removing it as a pointless list - Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The advertising/namebranding of a major company is a reasonable subject to cover. It could be merged into Seven Network, but as some of the links I provided show, this kind of marketing is quite notable. Mister.Manticore 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, could somebody explain to me how this is indiscriminate information? It's not a FAQ, travel guide, memorial or any of the other entries described at WP:NOT#IINFO, but rather the actions of a major company, something that is the subject of regular coverage in the media. Mister.Manticore 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That list in WP:NOT is not intended to be all encompassing. It is meant to provide examples of what is indiscriminate. The seven network does many many many things, much of which is reported on as they are a media company. You could easily make a referenced list of many other things at the network just due to this fact. A list like this clearly fails the notability requirements in that noone outside the seven network or associated companies cares enough to write substantially about it. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that the list at that location is all-encompassing, but the problem is lacking any connection to the criteria on that list, leaves the statement that any particular information qualifies as indiscriminate without substance. Thus I ask people to explain why they believe it is indiscriminate information, not to just declare it such. Without that articulation, it's not exactly much to go on. However, since you do mention outside people writing about it, well, guess what, they do. I already provided links which show that the namebranding/identity building of networks is something that is covered in the news. Not being an Australian, I don't know where to look for sources from that country which would be more likely to cover this company directly, but I accept that in principle such could exist for what seems to be one of the larger Australian broadcasting organizations. Mister.Manticore 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not encyclopaedic in nature and un-referenced.--Bryson 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking reference and fails to meet my criterion on use as providing a summary of notable people or things we have or should have articles on or useful list. Notable slogans should be noted in the article on the Seven Network although it seems to be the case that Seven changes its slogan every year. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it's information already included in the various TV station articles. timgraham 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a non-encyclopædic collection of tidbits of information. Lankiveil 11:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• keep at this stage. This list is an impressive collection of slogans used by a very notable company in Australia. I agree it wouldnt be considered encyclopedic if it was going to be printed on paper, but the lack of sources does not mean that the slogans are disputed, and the list format means it is not OR. Give the contributors time to develop this interesting article that demonstrates branding in practise. In the back of my mind is the fact that this is a prominent piece of a companies branding that is shoved down our throats daily (if we watch that is), and I cant help but think that there is an encyclopaedic piece on the brand that will come of this if we let it be. The outcome could be very similar to our articles on flags of each nation. Note that it would be very easy to add video evidence of these slogans, except that doing so it not as easy as jotting down the details of each slogan, hence the evidence being missing. In a way, the date range provided for each slogan is a citation. The article says go to an archive of the TV programs of this period and you will find that slogan. Also, these slogans are often mentioned in commentaries by other media networks in a derogatory way, and the more notable the slogan, the more often they appear in comedy and in satire. John Vandenberg 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft or include their most recent slogan in the network articles page--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nobody has demonstrated that these slogans been written about by anybody who is independent of the Seven network. Adding video evidence is insufficient because that is not independent coverage - it is OK to validate each individual element with primary source material, but there needs to be secondary source material to show that the whole topic is notable.Garrie 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Allow me to be the first to demonstrate that: "The One to Watch": [6] "Love You Brisbane" [7]. Misc discussion about slogans [8], [9], [10]. Slogans are part of our culture. This is no different to the Swoosh having an article. John Vandenberg 05:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge slogans back to Seven Network article, on the condition that some information be added. As for the images, they are an interesting and notable part of the network, and should be kept, though this article is not the place. JRG 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian King

Ian King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable athlete. No references show the person is notable enough to merit inclusion. Delete Ragib 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep King is well known in strength training and circles (trains numerous Olympic athletes) and has numerous interviews online. See Google search results.[11]. He also operates King Sports International [12]. Also as per WP:BIO under Special Cases, King qualifies as a creative professional - as he is an author of both books [13] and articles in fitness magazines [14]. The article is in desperate need of expansion - not deletion. Yankees76 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google is only returning promotion or self-promotion sites, and clearly a lot of advertisement. Does the status of an highly advertised athlete on the web meets the criterion for notability? None of the big claims about him (apart from the fact that he has a fair web presence by virtue of the advertisement and promotionals) could be verified as fact so far. I have posted a lot of requests to get help expansion of the article. But, so far nothing came up, and there is no reason to believe that something will come up. Delete, then? Aditya Kabir 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Yankees76. If the Google is only returning self-promotion site then do we need to use Google as primary search engine? It's still providing information about Ian King.So I assume it can be expanded and gone in stubby --NAHID 10:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC) The article still conveys some valuable information. The links provided by Yankees76 meets the criteria to keep the article--NAHID 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Google gives a very rough idea about notability. If someone is certainly notable, then 3rd party sources should be available. Since there isn't probably any systemic bias, Google should at least provide 3rd party sources besides self promotional ones. By the way, please do not vote multiple times. Thanks. --Ragib 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I have asked quite a few participants on the bodybuilding projects to substantiate the claims on article, as well as the project talk page. All I got back was assurance that something will come up. Nothing did. There is no reason to believe that anything but more promotional websites will be all that supports the subject. Not verifiable, hardly notable, and remains very much fancruft. I tried saving it, and failed. No one is interested in expanding or substantiating the article. Aditya Kabir 15:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Again multiple vote for deletion in above section NAHID 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, dear. A comment to refute someone else's potisiton and declaring a delete position are not the same. And, besides, this is not a voting box. Aditya Kabir 04:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm, I should've made another comment.Your comment supported for deletion. Don't forget that.May be you also forget, this is not a voting box--NAHID 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I researched this and all the above links are self promotional even his suppose to be web site has nothing to do with him per say. Not noted as an above average trainer as If he qualifies then I do as well so were will it end...Delete not supported.--Cleanupman 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A very quick Google search shows the subject is the author of 3 books in his field and is respected in the field of bodybuilding. He may not be an 'important' athlete by some standards, but he is notable by Wiki standards. I am adding some links. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How so? The Wiki standard tells us that the notability criterion shared by many is - A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject (WP:NN). And, that independent sources may not include Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works should be someone else writing about the subject (amazon.com as vendor fairly misses to be an independent source). Besides, the specific notability guideline for biographies tells us that for a general bio the subject should have a credible independent biography, for athletes the subject may be competitors who have played in a fully professional league or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport, or competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (this was claimed of the subject by never verified), and for writers/journalists the subject may be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors (WP:BIO). Cheers. Aditya Kabir 03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, I realise you have indicated the page needs to be deleted, but please don't downgrade the article to a single line again. This author's book is independently published and the author information given there is sufficient to cite as reference material for the minimal claims that had been made about this person by the editor who wrote the article. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about hiding unnecessary information (I didn't delete them, though), but how does the information on where he lives and if he is married adds to his notability? And while you take a postion for keep, please, refrain from removing tags that ask for citation (also, please, refrain from putting back the same weblink twice). Remember, most books are independently published, but are not independently cited. A citation from the vendor of the book makes neither the book nor the author notable. Aditya Kabir 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have left a comment on your grave allegation of downgrading an article during deletion discussion on Talk:Ian King. I DID NOT downgrade it, or else I wouldn't have linked it to other articles or asked others to upgrade it. Aditya Kabir 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As per Yankees76 and Greatwalk. Author of books, trainer of Olympic athletes, notable. John Vandenberg 10:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Trainer of Olympic athletes? Which athletes? Aditya Kabir 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont know. [15] says he did. Lets leave the article alone so the contributors can figure that out. John Vandenberg 21:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just make sure that a vendor of the subject's book (i.e. amazon.com) doesn't become the sole source of his training of world class athletes and so on. And, I apologize for downgrading the article. I really hope someone figures something about the subject, apart from the books he has written. Aditya Kabir 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is not an acceptable reason for deletion that, based on one's personal understandiung of the subject, one doesn't think it notable. The qy is whether other people do and say so in RSs.DGG 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, since I was the only user debating for a delete, I think it was directed against me and my understanding. I am hurt. For one - I never claimed to know anything about the subject. But, that doesn't mean that I don't understand wikipedia notability standards, and I don't understand promotional sites. Unfortunately, I work in an advertising agency (affiliated with JWT) and there is a possibility that while you may know everything about the subject, I may be more knowledgeable about promotional work (though not necessarily so). As long the wikipedia standards of establishing notability is followed I have no problems with the subject. This is not a personal vendetta against a person unknown to me (apart from the fact that he is well advertised). I haver already quoted all the guidelines that stand against the article, and none of the people who know much better than I do have been able to provide anything that meets those criterion (apart from more promotional stuff, including those of a vendor of the book written by the subject). May be I haven't noticed that wikipedia is a democracy now, and AfDs have turned into voting boxes. Sorry, again for all the trouble. Keep whatever the people wants. Aditya Kabir 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Current quality of article has nothing to do with notability of subject. Seems to be well known ...maelgwntalk 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I reckon he's notable - he shot my brother twice in the legs and nearly strangled him in 2001. He deserved it though, was trying to kidnap him for ransom. But Mr King was man enough to drive him to hospital and didn't notify police - they decided to call it even.WunNation 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per DDG above. Lankiveil 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Changed to keep as per WunNation above. My, what amazing notability. Aditya Kabir 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand

[edit] Finda

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

It is not apparent that this page serves any more than a spot through which an advertising directory could receive more traffic. Keesiewonder ^talk 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Question can some admin explain to me the history of this article? I got a notification from a bot about this AfD and when I look at the history for Finda it looks as though I created the article with the edit summary "db web"! I'm not that crazy... Thanks in advance for clearing up that mystery. Pascal.Tesson 16:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I know the answer - the creator account has since been deleted so is no longer showing up. Iridescenti 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Pascal.Tesson 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP, WP:N Orderinchaos78 03:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

* Keep per WP:WEB, and reasons brought forward in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finda, as it stands finda is a valid competitor to Trade Me, it is well known, but the name isn't as sticky as Trade Me, also note, reference #1, could technically be called bias due to same parent company, and hence cannot be considered independant for WP:WEB Criteria #1, however the remaining 3 references, are from my knowledge independant. --NigelJ ^talk 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge Suddenly, I find myself realising why it's nominated, I did some thinking about this matter on the bus today, and worked out why it should be deleted, the site is not particularly notable, there are been little/no press coverage (even by parent company APN's publications), the company has a small market share, (but still is Trade Me's largest competitor). Not to mention, that one source is bias, and another no longer exists. The other two are from places I've never heard of. My solution is complete deletion for not been notable, or merged into APN News & Media. --NigelJ ^talk 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like multiple reliable sources have been provided. Abeg92contribs 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but it needs editing, particularly concerning capitalization. Realkyhick 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP.--Bryson 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elsewhere in Oceania