Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Australian


 * 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 keep (almost a snowball by the end, although a fair nomination to begin with) Orderinchaos 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Australian

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, article could realistically be summed up in perhaps one sentence. Simply not even worth an article, but maybe it could be the title for a cat (?) Anonymous Dissident  Utter 09:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: -- Category:Dutch Australians already exists. - Longhair\talk 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If an intelligent use was made of the reference of 400 years contact The Dutch Down Under, 1606-2006 / co-ordinating author, Nonja Peters. Sydney : Wolters Kluwer/CCH Australia, c2006. ISBN 1921153555 - the claim for lack of notability would sink quicker than all the dutch wrecks off the west coast - it might become something - specially with the migrants of the 1950s in western australia and tasmania - for a start - however as it is - it depends whether.... afds have a life of their own unfortunately... SatuSuro 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be in vio of WP:WAX, but I dont see an article on, say, Finnish Austrlian (s) or Maltese Australian (s). Anonymous Dissident  Utter 10:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete per Assize's argument above. Unless these secondary sources are reliable ones, which are non-trivial coverage of the subject, then it should be deleted. However, the sources must assert notability. No prejudice against changing my vote to Keep if new sources are found. --SunStar Net talk 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Following Comment: Of course not the Maltese or Finnish - it is because they are not in the majority - however check Welsh-Australian - that would be far more relevant to the history of Australia. It would take about two paragraphs of someones time utilising information from the Nonja Peters text to remove any doubt as to the relevance, notability and significance of the Dutch in the history of Immigration to Australia in the last 100 years. SatuSuro 12:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There actually is a reasonable contention for *both* - the Finnish had a huge role in Mt Isa, and the Maltese in Melbourne (in fact it wouldn't be hard for an NPOV RS'd to be written about the latter, it's a quite cohesive community - I remember reading about this when I was doing the Melbourne suburb articles). Orderinchaos 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of course there should be articles on both Finnish and Maltese Australians in due course, Australia was a very important destination for Maltese emigrants during most of the 20th century.--Grahamec 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Delete for the moment until secondary sources provided. Might qualify as a list. Assize 10:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think the references support the article, and I would argue that only one of them is reliable anyway. The terms Dutch Australian, Greek Australian, etc, are generally used in Sydney to denote somebody born in Australia of Dutch or Greek parents.  This really is a dictionary entry and should be on wikidictionary. However, the references cited would support an article "Dutch in Australia" as the Australian War Memorial site gives tons of information on this and there are heaps of books on the Dutch in Australia. Assize 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
 * References still don't support the term "Dutch Australian". As only a new article, will pursue that issue through the talk pages as the actual subject matter of the article warrants a page on wikipedia. Assize 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly can be sourced, should be tagged as such not deleted. -- Mattinbgn/talk 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to Keep per Mattinbgn's reasoning above. --SunStar Net talk 11:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy keep Article certainly needs expansion but they were a significant group post WW2, maybe a change of title needs to be considered Paul foord 13:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment nominated for deletion four minutes after creation! Hardly time for improvement. Paul foord 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, this subject deserves more than four minutes. John Vandenberg 13:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it can be improved, then why hasnt it been? It's now been given 3 hours +. I dont think the creator has any more intentions for it. The above is, in my opinion, a weak vote. It has been given more than four minutes! Anonymous Dissident  Utter 13:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been lots of improvements since the Afd. Or do you want a featured article in three hours? John Vandenberg 13:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I dont. I want to see this article deleted, for a number of reasons: 1. It is non-notable. 2.It belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. 3. The actual object of the article could be summed up in one sentence. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 13:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an notable subject regardless of the current quality of the article.  Anonymous Dissident's repetition of his previous comments is not useful.--Grahamec 13:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He asked me what I wanted in 3 hours, I told him. Any garbage article can use this excuse to not be deleted. If he wants to have more time, he should place the tag onto the article shouldn't he?  Anonymous Dissident  Utter 13:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note: I do not wish for this AFD debate to become too heated. Whether you have opposed or supported the deletion, your input is much appreciated. Thank you to all who have participated in this discussion. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The initial contributor of this author,, has a grand total of 56 edits, making this a typical case of an inappropriate introduction. John Vandenberg 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we wouldn't want that. But, even though the creator is very new, it doesn't make the actual article any less a candidate for deletion. If the article is kept, he should have some congratulations; if it isnt, he should still have congratulations plus an encouragement notice. We were all newbies once. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 13:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just sent him a note. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 14:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am astounded. Afd is not 'Articles for discussion'.  Unless you are 100% confident that there is not two significant sources that document the existence/plight/etc of the Dutch immigrating to Australia while running from the Germans that they had underminded, then this is a nuisance nomination. John Vandenberg 14:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (new indent) I am trying to make sense of what you said: yes AFD means articles for deletion, but how is this relevent. Did I say it somewhere, by accident? And, as for the second part, about sources -- I never mentioned those, but you speak as if I am blatantly contesting it. Please explain. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reason for nomination is that this subject is not notable and should be deleted on sight; that means you believe that two significant sources cant be found. John Vandenberg 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment John Vandenberg, that's way out of line. Please assume good faith. If Anonymous Dissident believed it should be "deleted on sight", then the obvious choice would have been a speedy deletion template. Instead, it came to AFD, where there are five days to discuss the topic, improve the article, and build consensus.--Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Mattinbgn's comment above - notability is a non issue if you read my comments above - to ponder otherwsise is contravening WP:POINT there are hundreds of refs in the book that I have cited aboveSatuSuro 14:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep since it's apparent there are sources can be found, and I would like to caution the nominator to be more careful in examining whether or not a given population group might merit an article. Certainly, it is possible that some insignificant population group might get an article, but that doesn't mean they all do.  But while I think you should have looked harder before this AFD, I think it's important to assume that you meant well, and not get to focused on the criticism of the nominator.  Assume Good Faith, folks, people can make mistakes, and one of the points of AFD is that sometimes cleanup does happen.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit now that I may indeed have been too quick to nominate this for AFD. I did not realise that they played such an important role in Australian history. To be honest - I would not particularly care if the AFD was closed. However, as pointed out above, the article has improved geatly since nominated for deletion, and, ironically, amy now be elligible to be kept after the efforts made due to its dletion nominating. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 15:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Comment- fair enough - but the issue was if you had read Mattinbgns or my comments and taken them in good faith - you would not have had to go through the further issues below that. If you do not know the history of a country that well - all you had to do was read Mattinbgns or my comments top see that a tag for cleanup or sources was all that was needed - cheers SatuSuro 15:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously sourceable and a significant immigrant group in Australian history. Still needs some cleanup, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A clearly notable and useful subject for an encyclopaedia to cover - they are one of a very small number of groups (about 7 at a guess) about whom an encyclopaedic article could be written given available sources. Article may need work. Orderinchaos 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should be closed. The article is good enough to keep now. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.