This is a collection of discussions on the deletion 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:
Redirect to the article about the line. The station verifiably existed which is enough to merit a redirect. "Very little" is not "nothing". Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of the station in that article - not even a table of all stations. Given that, I'm not sure if that's an appropriate redirect. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see why this can't be covered under the main Ceop article. This is a former program, that's been renamed, with no sourcing other than primary items. We don't need an old article to talk about something else; this is either notable or it isn't. I don't see coverage for this defunct website program thing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is have you seen the state of the article? It's no longer about the ThinkUKnow campaign, it's entirely about something else which is not notable. This mess should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article deletion is not the solution for badly written content, although blanking and redirection could be. However, this article has been completely rewritten since nomination and now is a stub that has 8 sources from 2 different countries. It can be improved and expanded upon. Potentially there are two different article here, but simply documenting the name is a first step. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nomination was purely about the current state of the page. If it's been hijacked and turned into something different then edit it, go back to the pre hijack page. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Associate professor with an h-factor of 33 and no major awards. Page was created in 2014 when he was an assistant professor -- in 2024 that would (should) not be done of course. The page was tagged for academic notability in 2020, and no improvements have been made and he seems to have slipped through the cracks. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. In this area of physics, authors are mostly alphabetical so we can't conclude much from author ordering. And although it is a high-citation field, I think numerically his citation counts look ok. I think if there were literally anything else that I could point to as contributing to notability, it might be enough to push me into a weak keep, but I didn't find anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro Australian football team that isn't on the website of its football federation (footballsa.com.au) and thus independent. As a result, this is a WP:GNG / WP:NSPORT failure. (If you see coverage I may have missed, please ping me.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I struck out my previous !vote. She is the most likely candidate to be elected, the by-election is in a couple of weeks, and I think draftify would be the best option until the by-election date. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From a functional standpoint, I agree it would be unhelpful if Tudehope was elected in about three weeks' time and this article had been deleted by then. However, "she might be elected" is not a policy-based reason and keeping the article or dratifying it on that basis alone would not only violate policy but set a bad precedent. This reminds me of something similar that happened with a federal (national) candidate in Canada whose article was deleted and recreated twice because he was the hopeful, won in the preliminary voting, then lost by a narrow margin in the final count. Whose opinions are we giving unweight due to when we say that a candidate is the favourite to win? Why not create an article or draft for Duncan Voyage, in case he wins instead? From a policy standpoint, this article was created too soon and should not exist, and the arguments to keep it rely on contradictions of WP:FUTURE. Yue🌙21:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: doing a decent WP:BEFORE check is difficult these days with the major Aussie papers going behind paywalls, but Newsbank had 3 items of significant coverage from independent sources, which I've added to the article. The-Pope (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON directly suggests draftification. Two of the three third-party sources ostensibly cover the same event while the third has some four sentences of independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If TOOSOON directly suggests draftification then why did you nominate for deletion? Plus I'd rather go with a policy that has a sensible outcome than an essay that has a pointless outcome. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to establish the company's notability, as there are no significant independent, reliable sources demonstrating its impact or widespread recognition. Additionally, the content primarily reads as promotional, lacking the necessary depth or critical coverage required. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the coverage is signicant, see The Australian and Forbes. What's more, the articles aren't just promoting it, but suggest it is offering a unique way of doing business. Therefore I'm satisfied that it meets WP:NCORP notability critieria. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage StarMississippi21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have semi'ed the article due to the blanking, but not this discussion. If someone feels I should not have done so as nom, feel free to amend. StarMississippi00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal article on a state branch. The Australian Democrats were never significant in state level politics in Queensland and this article is little more than excess detail about the foundation of the branch, a list of federal Senators from the state and obscure points of Queensland company law. State & territory branches of Australian parties should only exist when the party was a significant force at that level. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that the article passes WP:NCORP. Almost all of the available sources seem to be paid PR. Those that aren't paid PR lack WP:SIGCOV. In keeping with almost all the sources being paid PR, the article is heavily promotional. I don't see that anything has changed since the last deletion. TarnishedPathtalk12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first SMH article is mostly quoting or attributing statements to IC. This is not WP:SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" as required by WP:NCORP.
The second SMH article mentions them in passing three times. There is no SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".
I can't access The Australian article, because it's behind a paywall. No comment there.
The Knews article is about IC Markets (EU) Ltd which is registered in Cyprus, so not sure it is completely relevant to this article as this is about an Australian entity. That aside this isn't really SIGCIV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".
The news about the Cypriot entity is relevant as the current article also provides information about the operations outside Australia. This probably has to be rewritten to clarify the connections between such entities though. Vgbyp (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all of the articles suggested by me (except for the Sock puppets and Lifeline ads: Welcome to the wild world of copy trading by SMH) meet WP:SIGCOV. The subject doesn't necessarily need to be the source's main topic if it's covered directly and in detail, which is the case for the four news articles from my list. Vgbyp (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question we need to consider is whether they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, not whether you think they are SIGCOV compliant. We require in-depth WP:NCORP "Independent Content" WP:ORGIND *about* the *company*. The "Fake Margin Calls" articles has no in-depth information about the company other than generic information such as where there HQ is located. Repeating what the company told its customers, quotes, etc, is not "Independent Content". The article about the company getting fined is based on a press release for a total of 7 sentences, none of which provide any in-depth information. The first source about the class action simply regurgitates court documents and is not "Independent Content" and the other source is also not Independent Content as it relies on commentary from the lawfirm filing the case. HighKing++ 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone with TWL bundle access, the article in The Australian is available via ProQuest (2912082870), among other means. I will reserve comment on the rest of the issue to a later date. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031, thanks for that. Given what is covered in that article I don't see that it adds to the notability of the company taking into the requirements of WP:NCORP. Simply that the company be addressed directly and in-depth by independent sources. A lot of the article is quotes from either the company or from lawyers investigating initiating a class action against the company (i.e., not independent). What is left over is not the company being addressed directly and in-depth. TarnishedPathtalk03:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. TarnishedPath has provided an analsys of the sourcing above, none of which meets GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the coverage reviewed seem too routine to contribute to NCORP. I also place lower weight on discussing alleged illegal conduct on the same basis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no claim to encyclopedic importance. It should have been speedy deleted per WP:A7 but it was oddly declined. Being a student and in a program that trains opera singers does not make one encyclopedic. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, 4meter4, but as a long-term editor, one would expect you to at least follow WP:BEFORE before an AfD nom. Fagan was a student in 2016, some eight years ago. She is now a successful soprano. For example, she sang Musetta in La bohème at Covent Garden earlier this year. A simple search of Google News turns up plenty of results. AfD is not clean-up. Edwardx (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EdwardxWP:SPEEDY is different than a WP:GNG deletion rationale. The article still fails to make a credible encyclopedic claim in its current state and should be deleted under A7. SPEEDY is cleanup for articles that don’t meet a basic level of stub competency. Please read A7 which specifically excludes notability as a relevant issue. Yes notable topics can get deleted under A7.4meter4 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. That argument is WP:WIKILAWYERING and a subversion of both deletion policy and WP:CONSENSUS. It was the wrong call to not delete this article under A7 which doesn't make a credible encyclopedic claim. It's perfectly valid to seek community consensus to overturn a bad decision made by an editor who ignored A7 policy. If you want the encyclopedia to keep this article than I suggest you edit the article to meet a basic level of encyclopedic competence so A7 isn't valid. Otherwise, we don't keep articles on WP:BLPs that don't make a credible claim of encyclopedic importance no matter how many sources we find because WP:Notability is not relevant under A7 which is policy.4meter4 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should be obvious. It's better to use the WP:CONSENSUS process when there is a difference of opinions. That's wikipedia community policy, and WP:AFD is the community forum to discuss deletions. FYI WP:SPEEDY policy gets used at AFD with some frequency. It's not like this is an out of the norm conversation. Not all AFDs involve just WP:N. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the tone of the comments here is overly terse and accusatory. You might want to try WP:AGF and actually look at A7 policy objectively. You can't seriously be telling me that an article telling us someone went to a music school and got into a training program for opera singers is encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems like none of the keep voters are engaging with WP:A7 as policy. If the current in article text remains unaltered and we close this as keep, this will be a prime candidate fro WP:DELETIONREVIEW. We either follow deletion policy or we don't. It's that simple. If editors are finding encyclopedic achievements not currently in the article text please add a sentence or two to the article so that A7 is no longer an issue. 4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I would greatly prefer that someone add the sources found and explain in context - per WP:HEY. I am an opera queen, but I’m not familiar with the subject. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get a review of the sources. A reminder, AFD isn't CSD so we needn't be focused on a previous tagging and stick with standard notability assessment of creative professionals that occurs in AFD deletion discussions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:09, 27 September 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}}.
Musetta in La bohème at the Royal Opera House 2024. Reviewed in i: The Paper For Today by Jessica Duchen "but any chemistry between these two was a tad outshone by that of Marcello and Musetta - baritone Mikhail Timoshenko and soprano Lauren Fagan (replacing Danielle de Niese) - who blended seriously impressive singing with uninhibited sensuality to magnificent effect." and in The Times by Neil Fisher "In a hairpin turn from having just sung Gretel in Hansel and Gretel at this address, Lauren Fagan’s take-no-prisoners Musetta is irresistible, having great fun with the physical comedy (watch out for the flying knickers) but also giving this good-time girl a stature she often lacks." and in The Observer by Fiona Maddox "As the quarrelsome Musetta and Marcello, the Australian soprano Lauren Fagan and the Russian baritone Mikhail Timoshenko revelled in disputation, as well as attracting sympathy." and in the Express by William Hartston "Covent Garden audiences last saw Fagan as Gretel in the Christmas production Hansel and Gretel, but Musetta's knickers-removing antics at the Cafe Momus are gloriously accomplished and strikingly more adult." "All of the leading parts are well sung, with Ruzan Mantashyan and Lauren Fagan particularly excellent."
Margarita in Ainadamar at Theatre Royal then Edinburgh Festival Theatre 2022 reviewed in the Times by Simon Thompson "Soprano Lauren Fagan is the actress Margarita, singing the opening scenes with a deep chest voice but scaling gleaming heights for Margarita’s final apotheosis." and in The National by Stewart Ward "Thus is the scene set for an opera comprised of totemic episodes from the artistic life of Lorca (played with wonderful sympathy by the American mezzo-soprano Samantha Hankey) and Margarita Xirgu, the actor-director who was Lorca’s great collaborator and champion (performed with a truly Spanish passion by the Australian soprano Lauren Fagan)." and in The Herald (Glasgow) by Keith Bruce "But others will surely single out Lauren Fagan's equally commanding Margarita or the beautiful voice of Colombian soprano Julieth Lozano as Nuria, and it would be foolish to argue." and in The Daily Telegraph by Nicholas Kenyon "As Margarita (a role conceived for Dawn Upshaw), Lauren Fagan is superbly forceful in a part that reaches high both in range and in passion." and more
Helena in A Midsummer Night's Dream Glyndebourne 2023 reviewed in The Times by Richard Morrison "When anger erupts among the drugged lovers (an excellent quartet of Caspar Singh, Rachael Wilson, Samuel Dale Johnson and Lauren Fagan), there is an alarming degree of vitriol in their voices and body language." and Financial Times by Richard Fairman "The four mortals — Lauren Fagan, Rachael Wilson, Caspar Singh and Samuel Dale Johnson, all good — are fired up when Wilson's Hermia lets fly in their quarrel." (Also Daily Mail * 2 but that's not liked by Wikipedia, excessively I think for some things like this but that's not for here)
Violetta in La Traviata'm at Her Majesty’s Theatre (Adelaide). Article in Iannella, Antimo (2022-02-27). "Prodigal's return for star role". Sunday Mail (Adelaide). and article in "Prodigal's return for star role". The Advertiser (Adelaide). 2022-07-22. and review in Shaw, Ewart (2022-08-29). "Something to sing about". The Advertiser (Adelaide). "Lauren Fagan, as Violetta, is beautiful, and the range of her music and emotion is fearless. At every moment, in triumph and despair, she holds the audience's attention like a star."
also worth noting Gretel in Hansel And Gretel Royal Opera House 2023. Reviewed in Mail on Sunday by David Mellor "It has been much commented on that, at last, it's being done here in English. But some of the singers have poor diction, like Australian Lauren Fagan's Gretel. She might as well have been singing in Serbo-Croat."
Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR with her stage roles [9], specifically: 1. touring with The Pirates of Penzance as Mabel [10][11][12][13][14] (multiple reviews at each of these stops). A recording of one of the shows was also released [15], the soundtrack of it won a 1995 ARIA Award. 2. touring with The Mikado as Yum Yum [16][17]. 3. touring with H.M.S. Pinafore as Josephine [18] (not just the highlighted section) [19][20] (recording also released). 4. touring with A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum as Philia [21][22] "Forum Is Light Musical Theatre At Its Very Best", The Canberra Times, 2 April 1999 - Vincent, Jeremy (4 January 1999), "Revival revels in farce, not class", The Australian. She is the prime focus of articles Brown, Phil (23 July 2008), "Back to the start", Brisbane News and Kelly, Patricia (26 June 2004), "Family puts a song in Helen's well-travelled heart", Courier Mail. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG I don't believe the nominator checked all sources. I have found a lot of coverage about them using Google and other search engines Monophile💬10:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Monophile Which of the sources are both independent and have significant coverage? What am I missing here? I am not seeing even one source that is both independent and has in-depth coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broken url, but its a directory listing with no attributed author. Unclear if it is a secondary source of information. Lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ryan, Gavin (2011). Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010 (PDF ed.). Mt Martha, Victoria, Australia: Moonlight Publishing. p. 173.
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Brief mention in a table. No in-depth coverage or discussion. Fails WP:SIGCOV
Interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources because they typically don't involve fact checking and lack independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources
0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper linked above by Duffbeerforme. Also has charted on Australia's national album chart for a pass of WP:NMUSIC in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep. Nom states that it does not meet NALBUM but a quick look at the article shows it went platinum so meets #3. Nomination is based on a false claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can’t believe I’m saying this, because the NOW compilations are such schlock… but. Accredited platinum album by the ARIA (who certify that stuff for Australia), so it seems to pass.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep article about a major arterial road in western Adelaide. It is also part of a set of Adelaide roads. The article has existed for over six years with no concern. Scott DavisTalk
FYI — the articles are accessible via an Apple News subscription. 1 mentions Grange Rd quite a bit throughout the article and is even in the headline. There a four mentions of Grange Rd in 3. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything which could be described as significant coverage on the page and I'm not finding much else which could be considered. JMWt (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMost of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/....and this particular reference holds multiple overlays containing relevant information to verify this road's location and councils responsible for it, amongst many other features: these sources are both reliable and from the state's own government department. Certainly there is more room for improvement and for a better variety of sources, but I don't believe it's a reason for deletion. Enough attention might encourage more contributions to invoke WP:HEY if it's not already there Lordstorm (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a clear consensus here to Keep but I'm unsure if the existing sources can justify this closure. Can editors who want this article Kept do a little digging for some reliable secondary sources? If this road is that important, they should be out there. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Profile is sufficing the WP:BLP and WP:Notability. As per the WRS, here's the link providing his mentions on multiple government official websites as well as on Parliament of New South Wales' official website. Article can be made concise rejecting the poorly sourced information. Here are the links below I have found during research validating his notability.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to get an assessment on this huge list of links so we know whether or not they are reliable. Tamaraharon, it would be helpful if you made this live, active links. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry UnionDelete I had looked at this article when it was first listed, and found many of the sources identified by @Tamaraharon so this was quick work. Aside from the primary sources, these are mostly just Diamond being quoted in an article which I don't think qualifies for notability. I see one source that qualifies for notability in the whole pile -- the Sydney Morning Herald article, #11 below -- which can be seen as significant and independent coverage from a major news outlet. The Guardian article #16 has a bit of editorial independence but it's really short - basically quoting him and then quoting someone reacting to him.
According to WP:BIO which is the applicable notability guideline, an article needs to be supported by "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".
On the other hand, primary sources are explicitly allowed for articles even though they do not count for notability, per WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources".
Weak Keep: Primary sources usage does not consent lack of notability. Profile has moderate recognition on gov website of Parliament of New South Wales. Subject has historical relevance.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The opinion of experienced editors who were not canvassed here would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎11:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. We all wish to minimize unnecessary churning, but "it will be recreated anyway" is not a valid P&G-based argument to keep a page that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria today. Owen×☎20:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an article does not prevent it from being recreated when more sources emerge. Having to be remade again is a given and is not a reason against deletion. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. Just a point of information, an AFD closer can not close a discussion with a decision to "Move" an article because that is an editing decision. So, if you want to Move this article, "vote" Keep and then have a Move discussion afterwards on the article talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neutral on keeping the article, but just wanted to say that the suggestions of moving it to Next Northern Territory general election are misplaced. "Next" is used in election article titles when the date of the next election is uncertain. However, Northern Territory has fixed-term parliaments and the next election must take place in 2028, so the current title is correct. Number5701:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.