Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's an Honour


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  03:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an Honour

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page is out of date and documents an old, defunct website. Sufficient information is already provided on the article Australian honours and awards system. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Having managed naught but two primary sources in its 12.85 years, delete it. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 03:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Websites.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep ...The site is still live and merely needs a link update. Perform WP:BEFORE next time.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A link to the website itself is not a source. AusLondonder (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am firmly on the Delete side since I started this discussion. You see, the article is explaining a website that the Australian honours and awards system page can easily provide all the information for, and the website has changed so the content is not very accurate. I do not think that this article satisfies any of the criteria in Notability (web). The website is not explained in an encyclopaedic manner, with little elaboration on much of the website. This guideline I have outlined states that the website an article is written about should have multiple independent sources backing up the information, I can hardly find any news pieces or similar. I do not think this article is particularly notable in terms of sourcing. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Zero sources that establish notability under WP:GNG. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Fails WP:RSS. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2024 (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.