This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Australia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Pickering isn’t an elected parliamentarian, he’s running as a candidate for a minor political party. I struggle to see how this meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines as he’s not known for anything else of notability aside of his political candidacy. All reporting is just mentions of the guy because he 1, is a candidate running in the upcoming Victorian State Election and 2, is because he was appointed the leader of Victoria’s One Nation branch. Based on how Wikipedia defines notability - election candidacy alone doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability. Leadership of a party (if the leader isn’t an elected official) doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability. As such, in my view, this article should either be deleted or merged into a One Nation Victoria article (which would have notability). Geelongite (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I actually agree with AusLondonder. We shan't be doing these things just for our political stances. NPOV exists on Wikipedia and, again agreeing to @AusLondonder, this article meets WP:NPOL and the GNG for significant coverage. MrActiniuM ☢️talk07:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose/Keep but need to clean up. I view his notability as being an operator in that far right conspiracy/agitator void, similar to Avi Yemeni. But his notability is in spreading conspiracies far more than political candidacy (less alone military service). Ponyshine (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Deletion nomination is based on a misrepresentation of WP:NPOL. An individual not meeting NPOL does not demonstrate that they're not notable. NPOL states: "Just being an elected local official, an official in a state/province-wide political party, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Describing One Nation as a minor party when they're leading the polls nationally (and in some cases in Victoria) is rather misleading. We do our readers a disservice by refusing to cover topics of interest to them in a neutral, unbiased way because we may disagree with someone's politics. AusLondonder (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete This bloke's ONLY notability is that he is the person chosen by Pauline to be One Nation Leader in Victoria. Thta's not enough. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Player was previously deemed notable under the WP:NAFL for having played one Victorian Football League match (in this case, exactly one), but this SNG no longer exists after WP:NSPORTS2022. All references in the article are databases – plus one passing reference in an article about one-game players. Google search for Dick Poole Collingwood shows up database and wikis only . 1897 newspaper search for Poole Collingwood Football shows nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE . Conclusion is that multiple secondary independent sources about Poole's football career do not exist and (given his career ended in 1897) shall never exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirex (talk • contribs) 23:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You are probably referring to me, as I was the one who wrote the first version back in 2021. I had no CoI back then at all, just a wish for her work to be noticed and for her page not to be redirected to her partner's page, as it did back then, which is an insult to a seasoned researcher and writer as she is.
Since then, I have worked with her, and when I wanted to update the page and create a more balanced piece (remove what you may think of as "puffery") I added the CoI and asked for approval of the update. I have now deleted it as I see no point in trying to get that approved, which proved to be right based on your request to even delete the whole page.
I'm not alone in arguing for having this page on Wikipedia and hope some will join the discussion. Since your request for deletion may have been initiated by my Draft:Open systems theory proposal and your opposition to that, I will probably not be able to sway you. In the meantime, I will update the page as planned to make it more representative, as I do agree that it is not there yet. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The page has been updated with more sources, and promotional language has been removed. This should make the WP:NPROF clearance more obvious. Also, Google Scholar shows sustained citation across the organisational development and action research literature:
Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1989, ≈274 citations),
Searching (1999, ≈190),
"The current version of Emery's open systems theory" in Systemic Practice and Action Research (2000, ≈165),
A Choice of Futures (with F. Emery, 1976, ≈156),
Barton, Emery, Flood and Selsky (2004) in Systemic Practice and Action Research (≈115),
"The search conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action" (with Purser, 1996, =694).
I did the updates to the page, which probably conflict with the WP:COI process, but I hope that is OK since there is an AfD, you are involved and there is full disclosure about my CoI and the ongoing AfC. More than happy to revert and create a draft page instead. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: authors of widely recognized concepts, both by public and by scientific community, are generally considered to be notable. There were concerns about promotional language of the article; the overly promotional language has since been removed. Jean Mélenchon (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Where is the secondary sourcing to establish this as a widely recognized concept by both the public and scientific community? Where is sourcing establishing the subject's role in this? Were you canvassed to be here? Sulfurboy (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Scopus has a mere 17 of her articles. Not sure which as they are hidden behind a wall. She has authored or coauthored at least ten books, eight edited books, 35 book chapters, 60 journal articles, and contributed 29 institutional research reports, including several national studies. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect back to Fred Emery. On Scopus I am not seeing anywhere close to the citations claimed above, with just 196 citations total and an h-index of 7. I'm also not seeing the significant recognition of either "open systems theory" or M. Emery as its co-developer needed for a pass of C1. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Why do you use Scopus? It has only 17 of her articles. See the numbers I've given above for her production and the number of citations on Google Scholar. Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Thjortel @BenAveling, because NPROF advises to use Scopus or WoS and against using Google Scholar for citation counts (bolding mine): The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. ...A caution about Google Scholar: ... For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. ... In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources.[2] It has also been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals.[3] Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only.If you can find multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple of her solo-authored books, that would be more helpful for a NAUTHOR pass.Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, is staggeringly sexist and patronizing. Just wow. JoelleJay (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm very aware that Wikipedia sets the bar higher for female academics than male academics. I think 'multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple books' is a bar that would rule out most academics. And, as per Wikipedia:NPROF, Google Scholar as prone to undercounting as overcounting, and can be used as a rough guide. Google Scholar is particularly compromised in this case because she doesn't have an account, which would have been helpful. That said, the top 5 results do seem to be the right M Emery, and have between 115 and 274 citations each, according to Google Scholar. The only journal among those five results is Systemic Practice and Action Research, which has an impact factor of 1.8. Springer report 56 and 35 citations for those two articles, about 1/3 of what Google Scholar reports. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Looking through Google Scholar, a lot of those citations come from the same two journals, Systems Research and Behavioral Science and Systemic Practice and Action Research, which possibly suggests significant impact but only in a very small field. All up, it's not nothing, this is not a field I'm familiar with, and it's tricky to compare impact factors between different disciplines. But. Compared to what I'm used to, and considering that this is over 20+ years, I can't build an argument for notability on citations. On the other hand, you could say much the same about Fred Emery's citation record if you only rely on Scopus Preview - it (wrongly) rates his h-number as being lower than hers. Citation count isn't everything. Her contribution to Open systems theory does seem significant. But is OST significant? I'm unsure that it demonstrably is. If we could quantify her contribution to Participative Design Workshop, that might be sufficient. Can we? Ben Aveling22:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think we can. She has not only worked on theory and done action research, but she has also helped numerous companies in Australia and Canada, in particular, in their transition to self-managing organisations. The PDW is one area where her contributions have been substantial, the other being the Search Conferences that have been the topic of her most well-known book and have been used a lot around the world, even here in Norway. It has also inspired other techniques like Weisbord's Future Search (https://futuresearch.net/about/history/).
Generally, I think C7 should be an equally important criterion for keeping as C1. Documented applications of Emery's methods include large-scale regional planning by the U.S. Forest Service (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000); Project Australia national consultations; Torres Strait Islands community planning (Paton & Emery, Journal for Quality and Participation 19(5), 1996); and workplace mental health (de Guerre, Emery, Aughton & Trull, SPAR 21(8), 2008). NPROF is disjunctive. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: Just got word that the Australian National University is preparing a biographical piece for publication on their website. Ought to be a decent sign of the importance of her work.
An extra point I would like to bring up concerns the suggestion to use WP:REDIRECT to Fred Emery (psychologist). It calls for targets that contain the information sought. Fred Emery's article does not document Merrelyn Emery's independent contributions — the two-stage model of active adaptation, her work on Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1993), the Search Conference monograph (Searching, John Benjamins, 1999), or the statistical methods (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000). A redirect would leave readers at a target that does not contain the material. Also, a redirect to Fred Emery here would fit a pattern noted in Wikipedia's coverage of women in science — redirecting the woman scholar to her male partner's article rather than maintaining a standalone biography. This concern is especially relevant where the target article does not contain the redirected subject's independent contributions. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not sure on this one; found while tracking spam. Difficult to find significant coverage in amongst the sales sites and results for the slang term but coverage of the brand seems sparse. Only one source in the article is a secondary, reliable source that covers the brand (the rest are about the slang term). A merge to Wesfarmers might be a better idea if there's more coverage than that one piece but not enough to sustain a standalone article. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts?17:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, the article contains a single citation to instagram. Searches of google, gbooks, gnews all yield nothing non-trivially related to him. Individually, he does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG and per WP:BANDMEMBER, then he should not have an article. Bungle491 (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, there is very little information from reliable sources that warrant the need for a page about this individual.
Redirect to Suburban Rail Loop#SRL North. There is no available information about this specific station (as opposed to the project) other than a dot on a map. All the details are unsourced speculation, the prose is poorly (and probably not human) written, and the list of bus routes serving a yet-to-be-finalized is nonsensical. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I accepted this article from AFC based on a WP:BEFORE search that showed while the references provided in the article are currently rudimentary, the organisation clearly meets GNG.
There are more than 47 hits for the organisation in The Age, the local newspaper of record, discussing its reports, policies and contributions over the last 20 years.
It isn’t a “run-in-the-mill park”. If the article was properly written and sourced, it wouldn’t be considered for deletion. Elrondil (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: the first nomination, which was more-or-less based on the same or similar concerns, only closed less than three weeks ago with "no consensus". The standard waiting period before renomination in this scenario is normally two months. (No opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch☎✎21:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I initially attempted to delete promotional and trivial material in line with WP:CORPTRIV guidelines. However, after doing so, not much of the article remains - most of which still reads as promotional. I concede Stake may be notable enough to have a wikipedia page, but beyond the media coverage it received in 2021 during the GameStop short squeeze, there are little to no sources (other then the company's own press releases) that could be used to make the article unbiased and encyclopaedic. SmallEditsOcassionally (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources presented by IgelRM....? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it)05:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Of the sources found by IgelRM, I think the first and third are SIGCOV. The first one talks about a conflict between Stake and a similarly-named company, and describes Stake's agenda in this interaction in some detail. The third one is partly a merger report (WP:CORPTRIV) but has a decent amount of analysis of Stake's strategies in different countries and how those relate to the broader stock-market picture. The second looks like CORPTRIV but this may be enough. Weak KEEP. M kuhner (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Unfortunately I can't seem to find much in the way of WP:RS reviews. Currently in the reception section there's a quote from the publisher and one from an outlet associated with BookLinks; the former doesn't count for notability. The latter may (I'm not entirely certain), but it alone isn't enough for NBOOK. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: If we could find a good source for the CBCA part, that could count towards notability depending on what it is. If it's something like the ALA's YALSA "best of" type lists then that would definitely count. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)12:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: Fair concern. Magpies looks like the strongest source so far. ReadPlus is less clear. the CBCA claim has not been confirmed. I am not sure the sourcing is enough for NBOOK. Charlie Zachary Allen Roth (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Pat Pledger, who pens reviews for South Australian English Teachers' Association and the School Libraries Association of South Australia
Fran Knight, who had been a librarian at the University of South Australia and pens reviews for Magpies, School Libraries Association of South Australia and the South Australian English Teachers' Association
I consider ReadPlus to be a sufficiently reliable source.
The review notes: "Leaving the Lyrebird Forest is a poignant and lyrical story about friendship, family and growing up in the bush. Alice Dorrit lives with her artist parents in a small house surrounded by bushland. ... Award winning author Gary Crew's beautifully descriptive novel captures the lush forest settings, heart-warming relationships and special bond of Alice and her wild bird. Julian Laffan's impressive woodcuts add depth, dimension and character. Leaving the Lyrebird Forest showcases a wonderful synergy between author and artist."
Macrossan, Mia (November 2018). "Leaving the Lyrebird Forest". Magpies. Vol.33, no.5. p.45. ISSN0817-0088. EBSCOhost133314973.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To evaluate Cunard's sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I created this because this was a leftover redirect from an old split and I figured it was more helpful to convert to a DAB then to have it target just A–B, which is what was occurring before the conversion to a DAB. If there is a previous consensus as to what to do when these splits happen and the redirects from moves are no longer unambiguous, I would love to know so I can figure out what to do going forward with these pages. Casablanca 🪨(T)13:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, that could be solved by moving it, if the event is considered notable. ONEEVENT failures where the event is notable are solved by moving, not deletion. BLPREQUESTDELETE notwithstanding. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Moving to change the topic also requires consensus. So while there is a different procedure for that, that consensus can also be established on AFD. IgelRM (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment (paid representative of the subject): I would like to provide some additional context relevant to the suggestion above, without taking a position on the outcome of this discussion. Renaming the article to Stranding of Ricky Megee or Survival of Ricky Megee would not address the concern underlying the subject's deletion request, since it would preserve substantially the same standalone coverage of the same individual and traumatic event.
I would also respectfully question whether the sources cited in the "Keep but rename" comment above demonstrate sustained coverage of the event as a standalone topic.The 2008 Police Journal source is a short review of Left for Dead published in connection with the book; the National article likewise concerns the book; the Washington Post and Australian Traveller pieces are retrospective features covering multiple survival stories; the 2017 source is a master's thesis from the University of Zagreb; and the Cambridge source is educational material. These certainly demonstrate that Megee's story has occasionally been retold or referenced, but that seems different from sustained substantial coverage establishing the 2006 incident as an independently notable event warranting its own article.
For additional context, the subject has explained to me that he did not seek an ongoing public profile following the event. He has also explained that the book was not initially his initiative and that he agreed to it reluctantly, with the subsequent interviews being connected principally with its publication. He later stopped speaking publicly about the experience and sought to return to private life.
For clarity, I am acting as Ricky Megee's paid representative and my conflict of interest has been disclosed. I am providing the above solely as additional factual context for the community's consideration. Toometa (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - seems to fit the criteria for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE pretty well. This is a person of marginal notability at best who is only notable for this one event. Per the guideline, unless the subject clearly passes GNG, "editors should seriously consider honoring such requests." This is not a clear GNG pass. I don't think renaming the article would alleviate these conserns. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC. citations are self-published (own companies, own byline) and commercial retailer listings for her self-published books, with no independent reviews. No academic notability demonstrated. Lone Wolf howl 08:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. While the sourcing here is light, there's enough to pass GNG in my view. The HerCanberra piece by Erin Cross is a proper independent feature, and the ACT government's Innovation Connect grant is a form of third-party recognition and combined with the body of authored work (multiple volumes already out), I think this is a reasonable case for notability Xcccccccc123 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - (with some regret, because I think that teaching children about economics is a very worthwhile thing to do). However, there is not enough independent coverage about the subject so as to meet WP:NBIO, and I couldn't find enough independent reviews of the books to help towards WP:NAUTHOR. I have reservations about the HerCanberra and region.com.au sources. The similarity in publication dates (three days apart in May 2025), use of the same supplied photo, and use of some of the same quotations make me think that they are more towards the promotional end of the journalism spectrum than the critical investigation end. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, but delete for now. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep The subject appears to meet WP:GNG through significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Any concerns about sourcing or article quality are matters for improvement, not deletion. Per WP:ATD, deletion is not the appropriate remedy where notability can be demonstrated from [], [] and []. Another issue is that,the nominator of this article is a sock puppet. ~2026-43171-10 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@~2026-43171-10, just on the sources you highlighted: I've already expressed my reservations about #1, #2 is not independent (the bio will have been written by the subject), and #3 is not independent either (from the byline, it was written by the subject). Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Ok to delete. There is nothing to merge since the entire article as it stands is unsourced and thus WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and appears to be out-of-date information that isn't easily verifiable. It also doesn't seem worth a redirect as the proposed target article doesn't even mention the show. Searched ProQuest and Google wth multiple parameters, but there isn't anything in the way of secondary coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The merge !vote was with "if sources can be found", which does not appear to have changed. I thought a redirect is ok even if the article doesn't mention it as long as it is obvious by the title "(radio show)", but no objection to deletion. IgelRM (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
