Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Oceania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Oceania. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Oceania|~~~~}} 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.
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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Oceania. 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.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


[edit]

Flag of Lord Howe Island

[edit]
Flag of Lord Howe Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreliably sourced and non-notable, some guy made an unofficial flag, the majority of mentions online appear to be citogenesis. Alexphangia Talk 17:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's arguably a hoax, and it's non-notable either way. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single reliable source for this. fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Jones (physician)

[edit]
Douglas Jones (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator blocked for UPE. No coverage of the subject easily found and cited sources don't seem to say anything about the subject but I'm out of my depth assessing notability in this field but none of the clams in the article seem extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Qflib. Further, in a search via Newsbank (wider and deeper than Google) I did find some 20 articles in the Ogden, Utah, regional paper The Standard-Examiner that reference and/or quote Jones' opinion in relation to allergies, but to me they seem very much ROTM for a community doctor. Nothing to meet WP:PROF. I neither could find any book reviews that would meet WP:AUTHOR. That the page creator has been blocked for UPE leaves an unpleasant taste too. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mélanie Charles

[edit]
Mélanie Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. No third party sources. A google news search comes up with a namesake jazz musician who seems more notable. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Operating Theatre Association

[edit]
New South Wales Operating Theatre Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable article mostly written as an advert LR.127 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa-Anne Smith

[edit]
Lisa-Anne Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 GT World Challenge Australia

[edit]
2025 GT World Challenge Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Or possibly redirect to Australian GT Championship as an ATD. CycloneYoris talk! 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Australia. CycloneYoris talk! 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you got rid of this one page youd have to get rid of all of these pages too Category:Scheduled motorsport seasons Multiple of those articles lack in real infomation and are full of TBCs. MotoGP and WRC dont even have the race calendar on them, but rather contracted races. There is sources about what tracks are holding what. And the dates. AidenT06 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AidenT06 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Keep: This championship is a GT championshio just like the British GT Championship and Intercontinental GT Challenge, in which this championship has also valid pages for the 2025 seasons right now. And the race calendar was already published for the next year. So, this page should be kept. And I really agree @AidenT06 for his opinion. There are two important categories already including the next seasons of motorsport championships, Category:2025 in motorsport and Category:Scheduled motorsport seasons. So, if you got rid of this page, why did not you get rid of the pages of all 2025 seasons, also for F1, WEC, and so on? Apeiro94 (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – Quick search for sources show that we're still in the early announcements stage of planning for the season. Deletion is unwarranted but could do with further development in draft space before being moved to main later this year when there will presumably be some more meaty content to discuss. Neither keep vote makes any substantial argument, both rely on WP:OTHERSTUFF appeals. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as a reasonable WP:ATD. The previous iterations of the championship seem notable, so there's no indication why this one cannot be when the time comes. But right now, it should be incubated in draftspace until the event is much closer. Bandit Heeler (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Per WP:TOOSOON, "[f]or an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources". That is simply not the case and the article is best sent to draft as this will change in the future. TarnishedPathtalk 10:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 NRL pre-season results

[edit]
2022 NRL pre-season results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I want to propose that the 2022 NRL pre-season results be redirected to National Rugby League#Pre-season or deleted, in addition to the 2023 NRL pre-season results and 2024 NRL pre-season results articles being renamed to 2023 NRL Pre-season Challenge and 2024 NRL Pre-season Challenge respectively. A collection of independently organised friendlies grouped on to one page is a trivial list and the information is better suited on the "2022 [team] season" pages. As for 2023 and 2024, these were organised by the NRL and the title of those pages should reflect the official name "Pre-season Challenge".

I understand muti page move would have likely been a better format for this discussion, however the template did not seem to function properly. Mn1548 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative could be to merge/redirect to 2022 NRL season#Pre-season, adding details from the background but not the fixtures section. There are only four NRL teams without 2022 season articles, Raiders, Roosters, Tigers, and Warriors, so all the matches apart from 2 (Roosters against Raiders and Tigers) are covered by these articles. EdwardUK (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a more appropriate redirect, thanks. Mn1548 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Disagreeing with the contention to rename the 2023 and 2024 articles. Both include additional information (trials, All Stars etc) that don't quite fit into the NRL's "Pre-season Challenge" nomenclature. I think the article in question here is a reasonable fork from the 2022 NRL season results article, which effectively captures the intention of these pre-season results articles. If anything (and this is especially true in the WP:RL space), these articles just require more prose. Storm machine (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally agree with most of this, though it still doesn't cover my main issue with the page - its title. "2022 NRL season results" implies there is some sort of formal organisation by the NRL, which there wasn't until 2023 and the pre-season challenge. Re 2023 and 2024, the non pre-season challenge information is minimal, and can be moved to the pre-season section of the respective NRL season page leaving the pre-season page as purely pre-season challenge information. Mn1548 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Krautil

[edit]
Fiona Krautil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaine Kennedy

[edit]
Zaine Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Almost all the sourcing is not third party but speedway related. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the sources are related to the speedway does not make them non-independent. Per WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. These sources could be considered affiliated with him if, for example, he were their owner. I would add a few more secondary sources [1] [2] [3] Tau Corvi (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have set up a discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Speedway_related_sources. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I saw the RSN discussion first, so I do not plan to vote, but to give my opinion from my limited perspective. Having taken a look at Scunthorpe Scorpions, which looks like two different teams on one article, I can count about five dozen riders that have articles. Of the "Notable riders," most of them use "speedway related sources" in their articles with British Speedway cited between two and three dozen times. (More problematic, but farther outside of the discussion is that at least one article is citing sources that are MREL and GUNREL.)
Overall, the issue over the specific sources is going to have an effect on other articles. If deemed a problem, then there will need to be more AfD discussions in the near future; while if deemed acceptable could lead to additional article creations. I am of the opinion that redirects to the team articles could be more preferred than deletion and that some information might be includable in the various team articles. That said, I am unsure if the sources are a problem on these rider articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacking in WP:SIGCOV. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Minimal significant coverage, no real claim of notability. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]



[edit]

The following Australian-related articles are currently Proposed for Deletion:



[edit]

The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present
[edit]

The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:

None at present
[edit]

The following Australian-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_9#Category:Extinct_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia
[edit]

The following Australian-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:

None at present
Shortcut


New Zealand

[edit]

Village Green, Christchurch

[edit]
Village Green, Christchurch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No longer notable after the earthquakes. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is appropriate to Queen Elizabeth II Park. I read the The Press sources and none are SIGCOV of Village Green but rather of the park or other buildings within the park. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Imre Vallyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.

In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ’’’Keep’’’ He’s a convicted pedophile. Where’s the good in deleting this? Meets WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:E9F:8340:51A7:F4CD:CE5C:4B8B (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as thin as it is, the media coverage in New Zealand and the Netherlands establishes WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Looks like an attempt to delete the history to me. It happened before that talented people did crimes (Roman Polansky etc.) and encyclopedia must show the good and the bad. There had been "no consensus" discussion before and my position here is that the person is a notable author and notable criminal and convicted felon at the same time. Also, I see it as a strange attempt from another editor and I have COI concerns here. If the page stays, I suggest to monitor it carefully for any future attempts to delete the historical record.--Saul McGill (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Rodgers

[edit]
Thelma Rodgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. PamD 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 15 July 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) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Categories / Templates / etc

[edit]

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

A list of prodded articles with {{WikiProject New Zealand}} tags can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts#Alerts.

Elsewhere in Oceania

[edit]

2024 Saipan International (badminton)

[edit]
2024 Saipan International (badminton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:EVENT. The winners are already covered in base article Saipan International (badminton).zoglophie•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

for occasional archiving

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Oceania&oldid=1234471322"