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.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Australia.
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:
Fails the notability guideline for organisations. Close to G11-worthy. I'm stunned this article has managed to stick around in this state since 2006 and even gets a link in Index of Australia-related articles. Only bringing to AfD since it does get a paragraph in the Sydney Morning Herald The only other sources I found were short pieces in local newspapers that fail WP:AUD. I'm happy to email full text to anyone who is interested, but they really weren't adequate. – Teratix₵ 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:GNG. Sources are mostly transfer and contractual related and some stuff related to his job as a an Occupational therapist which is not notable. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily worked on by a single purpose editor. Only 1 article links to this. Full of non notable participants and just a results listing. Only coverage seems to be in Perthnow. but fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a longstanding draft at User:Teratix/Australian rules football analytics which I really, really need to finish and move into mainspace at some point. I did a bit of searching for sources covering AFL Tables as part of my research, and it does get a mention in James Coventry's Footballistics (p. 265):
[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."
(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)
As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a view to creating a redirect to the statistics article once Teratix has moved their draft to mainspace (or it is otherwise created). It is regrettable that such an important RS doesn't meet GNG or WEBCRIT but there is simply no SIGCOV. Aspirex - I think a Template:Anchor would do the trick. And there are ~12,000 transclusions of Template:AFL Tables that could conceivably link there!
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as far as I can tell. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career never really kicked on to bring extended coverage, so not really enough to pass WP:GNG here. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) I am changing my recommendation to a redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: World Cup quarter finalist, several references (though more needed), suggesting player has had/having a career in Australia's first and second tier. Article needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played at the RLWC, nine sources, every line sourced.Fleets (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though he his semi pro with international caps, references given don't appear to suggest his career is notable, thus finding refs is unlikely. Mn1548 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The zealous moves to purge sportspeople whilst other more civilized pursuits skate by with achievement based criteria. Nom fails to explain why deletion is necessary when alternatives exist such as a Redirect to the appropriate section of 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing does not establish notability. Nothing found on Google either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Teratix₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for Fortune, NPR, Tearsheet) which meets WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations you have added are a classic example of a notability bomb – inserting a lot of insignificant references to create a superficial appearance of notability. For the benefit of other editors I will address each of them, but in future AfD discussions, instead of adding a dozen insignificant references and expecting other editors to pick through them, try to focus on a few excellent sources.
Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. – Teratix₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.
On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Teratix₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have performed some searches earlier with the same result. It is very strange that one of the few remaining golf magazines in a large country does not appear to generate much in terms of independent sources describing it (I even checked press in the National Library). --Викидим (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has several secondary sources, and by the looks of what is written, he went on to have a career in Australia's second tier. Don't think failing in the NRL is sounds to be classEd as not notable. Article could probably be expanded. Mn1548 (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer Ed Cowan so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Question Hey, GMH Melbourne, I'm not as familiar with AUS sources as you probably are, but to me those don't all look like simple straight interviews. Many sources will speak to a representative when covering any sort of business, and quoting those representatives doesn't turn a story into an interview. I feel like multiple of them are actually talking about the business in their own voices more than they're quoting the representatives. Can you elaborate on why you feel each of these doesn't represent independent coverage? Are these sources known for sponsored content?
For me the Vice piece probably fails to support notability of the restaurant more because its four long paragraphs before the interview portion are about the proprietor rather than about the restaurant. I would actually tend to accept that source as support for notability for the proprietor. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the table, the other sources are not just interviews, but also promo pieces or very promotional. A promo piece definitely would not count as a RS. Industrial Insect(talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I understand what you mean. If we take what you have said into account, I'd say that The Age article could count towards GNG. Broadsheet is a food/travel magazine it would be hard to say whether or not they are totally independent of the subject. The Herald Sun article is a total promo piece with a burger created exclusively for heraldsun.com.au which leads me to doubt the independence of the broadsheet articles. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh...I don't see promotionalism of the restaurant in that piece. That's more the herald promoting itself, which all newspapers do to some extent -- a story 'exclusive to the NYT' is not the NYT promoting the subject of their story but the NYT promoting themselves. So a burger created exclusively for the herald is really just the herald saying, "Aren't you glad you're reading the herald, because otherwise you wouldn't get this recipe!" But that said, again the piece is primarily about Rashid and Chang, not about Beatbox. So again I'd say not sigcov of this article subject.
The Broadsheet articles are about the restaurant. I generally like to see different sources, but these are at least written by different people at the Broadsheet. But that's still local coverage. The Age is probably not significant coverage, it's a bare mention of BeatBox in a story about food trucks during COVID. And the Vice is not about the restaurant.
I think on balance I'm landing on Delete. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While current sentiment is leaning towards delete, giving this another seven days to assess if further input continues to lean that way. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this Vice article which is no doubt independent, sigcov, and has depth:
This, combined with the dubious but in my opinion passable Broadsheet coverage meets WP:THREE and WP:GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the vice article is total independent, the vast majority of it is an interview with the owner, and even then I would say that it is based more on the owner rather than Beatbox Kitchen itself. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Vice piece is already in the article, and as GMH says, it's not about the subject. It's about the owner. Valereee (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but consider a new BLP article on Raph Rashid, for which the Vice article would be one principle source (two more would be necessary). The Vice article is in the source assessment table, which makes the point that the article is about Rashid and not about Beatbox Kitchen. We don't seem to have a BLP article on Raph Rashid, but that might be what is notable, not the burger truck. The article on the closing down must be approached with more caution. It is a discursive primary source inasmuch as it is reporting the closure. Discursive because it provides some background. The background is relevant, the occasion for the source is not, being primary. See WP:SIRS. Nothing here meets WP:CORPDEPTH and this fails WP:NCORP, but again, we have one good source for a BLP. If the BLP existed, redirect would be reasonable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the chain fails sigcov but the owner could have an article on themselve. X (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Given his age and ongoing career, draftification seems to be a good ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Think there's enough in the article, plus a search for a weak keep here. Draftification is a suitable WP:ATD if deemed not also .Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rugby League footballer who played for Lebanon at the Rugby League World. 8 sources.Fleets (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the sources has to be addressed. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads is an WP:ATD. On that page, one will find his club and cap count at the time (I don't know why rugby doesn't put DoB as well, like football squads). @JTtheOG, note that several other of the Lebanese 2021 World Cup pages are of the exact same build as Josh Maree. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in a team that got to a WC QF, nothing is written about his club career, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No evidence of the requisite GNG coverage, merely playing in some league does not meet any notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy under G4 again, requiring a third AfD nomination. The second AfD fell foul of this and FWIW it was deleted anyway. And nothing has changed. This fails WP:GNG. The coverage remains trivial and doesn't establish notability. It relies too heavily on Cage Match results which - while reliable - do not establish notability. More sources are needed as before and it appears they don't exist even after I tagged this article in early 2022. As this is the third (possible) deletion I would recommend salting if it does go the same way although sending it into draft mode I would agree to. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sydney Morning Herald is fine, but I don't see any other sourcing. What's used in the article is match results and I can't find anything that's in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even that source was a decade ago, if they're been no media coverage in the years since, I don't think we have notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included in the article are a number of recent sources, one being Sports Illustrated, discussing her move from Australia to the United States in March 2023. There are also a number of recently articles such as Hercanberra, Fightful and the now added Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Slam! Wrestling and Sirensports which focus on her specifically.
Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by Wiki: WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Analysing sources:Source one [1] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second [2] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three [3] is still unreliable. Source 4 [4] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five [5] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six [6] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that. [18] is statistics of Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on Wiki: WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
I've now added an hour long interview from Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are failing to acknowledge the fact the WP:GNG usurps WP:RS when the mentions are trivial or otherwise against the rules - as the Canberra and Sydney Morning Herald links are per prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls.Edits!Talk! 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has few appearances on NXT,[19][20] Impact/TNA,[21] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),[22] and ROH.[23] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,[24] her championships and titles,[25] and PWI rankings.[26] --Mann Mann (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mann Mann, that doesn't cover appearing in SIGCOV. WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling!Edits!Talk! 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.
As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.
Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable. Your comment is laced with original research and again presumes that WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.
Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in WP:SIGCOV (The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).
Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable
The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear[27] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in WP:SIGCOV. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.
This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this [28] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam![29], Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.
Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes
Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.
I indented your comment properly. Please indent this way in the future as it avoids confusion. Aside from that everything that you said there again seeks to push a reliable source above the GNG and SIGCOV tests. Short - by definition - is trivial. The comparison between a list of wrestlers and a list of songs is completely irrelevant. Dedicated coverage does not equal significant coverage, because dedicated and still be shirt and therefore trivial. The Sempervive interview is on You Tube and I will remove that. You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever. The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). Bottom line - a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability. It may add to it but it can not be relied upon. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever.
Please show me a guideline which states this.WP:Youtube and Wiki: Video links make clear that Youtube as a platform is not a problem in-of-itself; Youtube videos may be cited as long as they're from a verifiable, reliable, secondary source. Inauguration of Donald Trump, for example, cites several youtube videos attributed to reliable secondary sources such as PBS and CNN. Belle Delphine, a good-rated BLP article, has an entire subsection in its references dedicated to youtube citations.
The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). .
It's not SelfPub. Selfpub is when John Smith writes something for JohnSmith.blog, a website Smith control and runs themself. Slam! Wrestling is an Independent reliable secondary source per Wiki: PW/RS which McKenzie was asked to write a guest feature for. It's a primary source which can be used to make WP:ABOUTSELF statements, which is what it was used for.
a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability
No one is arguing it is on it's own. It's to be taken together with all the other sources being provided, obviously. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The correct citation criteria I am applying (to answer your struck out request) is WP:NPA via WP:BLP. It openly discourages Youtube videos in combination with WP:YOUTUBE unless certain criteria is fulfilled. The citation you gave doesn't do it. The comparison to the Trump inauguration is irrelevant because that isn't a BLP. Anyway - you have the other source so there's no need for this second one anyway. The article on Slam is selfpub because the subject wrote it. That's the only criteria required to breach that guideline. The platform is not relevant. And finally you are arguing the list to prove notability - because you pressed substantive coverage in it.
This has been done to death now and I suggest we wait for others to come in, now that it has been relisted again - and either agree with me or agree with you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will take discussion of this specific citation-issue to Talk:Shazza McKenzie because it's detracting from the purpose of this thread. But it is in fact important whether or not it is included in the article because it's an example of significant coverage, which is obvious important to a deletion discussion thread. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm new here and this should be deleted because it's an ad! What she's done etc etc. Is this allowed? If it is I'm sorry - I didn't know Wikipedia allowed ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're new and you should use four tildes to sign your posts. No - WP:PROMO prohibits advertising. It's an interesting observation the lack of content on her career aside from match result does in fact appear promotional. but I'll be neutral on this pending other input. Also I assume this is a Delete vote. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard of a tilde. Had to look it up and I can't find it on my keyboard. Yes this is a delete vote and thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tilde is in the capitalised position to the left of the 1 key. I've added Delete to your first comment in this edit to help you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please weigh in on the sourcing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian cricketer player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2, both from the same publication. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future. Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at List of South Australian representative cricketers also, so two suitable WP:ATDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think 1 and 2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article. These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing. In terms of SNGs, it meets WP:NCRIC as well. RoboCric Let's chat 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources. Those contain useful information, so I linked those. However, apart from these two, I guess this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance. I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep. Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future. Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one. AA (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers. Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there. If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To better summarize the sources in question, there are a couple sentences of coverage here, though it's mostly quotes, and four-ish sentences of coverage here. Both are from The Advertiser so they should be counted as one source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations
The following Australian-related articles are currently Proposed for Deletion:
Australia-related Miscellany for deletion
The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Templates for Deletion
The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Categories for Discussion
The following Australian-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Deletion Review
The following Australian-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:
None at present
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Australia, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses. ®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
