Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2005 in Australia and New Zealand


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

November 2005 in Australia and New Zealand

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There doesn't seem to be anything spectacular about this month in Australia and New Zealand. Seems to be pure listcruft, and I don't see how this would be of interest to anybody. Firestorm (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Note: I have now added the rest of these months to this AFD. Anything below should be for all of them.Firestorm (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of why this is a notable intersection of time and place(s). JJL (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete From the article, this doesn't appear to be a particularly amazing month... nothing that special seems to have happened. Also, it seems to be unrefed ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--pretty non-notable list. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - These lists do seem to exist for April 2005 - May 2006, however as they haven't been created since then and it doesn't look like anyone's missing them I think it would be safe to delete per not actually being notable as a month in 2005.  Matt  (  Talk  )   05:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * May 2006 in Australia and New Zealand is actually a redirect to May 2006 in Oceania. The Oceania ones go to January 2007 in Oceania.  Matt  (  Talk  )   06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * These are the archives for Current events in Oceania and its predecessor Current events in Australia and New Zealand. These regional current events pages were a regular part of Portal:Current events at the time, but they have all slowly fallen into disuse, in part, I suspect, as Portals became popular. I stopped maintaining the Oceania version in January 2007, as it became clear that no one else was interested in contributing to it. See also other regional current events pages, and as an example of other archive pages, Indian events by month. There are also a group of templates and articles linking all these together, such as May 2005 events and Monthly events, 2005. These tie these pages into the archives of the current events portal, such as May 2005. I believe all these pages should be dealt with together, and not this small sample handled in isolation. Accordingly, I think we should keep these articles until a fuller discussion takes place.- gadfium 07:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  07:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  07:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Combining Australia and NZ only is also a bit odd given that the two countries are fairly independent of each other. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being per Gadfium. There must be some use somewhere for this content and deletion at this time is premature. Perhaps a move out of article space is the appropriate course of action. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think that 3 years outdated is considered "premature". If somebody wants to move it out of article space then they're free to do so, but is this information going to be useful to anything? Firestorm (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:NOT, WP:LC, and WP:IINFO. Themfromspace (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Even the '(Year) in New Zealand' cats are mostly a bit empty. We don't need to subdivide them by month, and mixing Australia and New Zealand makes no sense, given how few pages would relate to both countries. --Helenalex (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with caveat. Any useful information needs first to be refactored into the 2006 in Australia, 2006 in New Zealand etc articles. Grutness...wha?  22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all - per Grutness above.  Matt  (  Talk  )   03:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete - so far I have merged April - July 2005 and November/December 2005. dramatic (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe dramatic is merging the New Zealand content, but the Australian content has not yet been merged.


 * According to the GFDL, we cannot delete an article which has merged into another since the contributor history must be preserved. Normally we redirect in such a case. This is a problem for these articles which are being merged in two directions. I am happy to forgo any rights under the GFDL as far as deletion of these specific articles are concerned, but the articles have contributors other than myself. The solution is possibly to add a note (an edit summary would be fine) to 2005 in New Zealand and similar articles, and to redirect these articles to the more general monthly article, eg May 2005, with a note or edit summary at Talk:May 2005 explaining that the content was actually merged into 2005 in New Zealand and 2005 in Australia. This will of course get ten times as complicated once the Oceania archives are dealt with, which is why consideration beforehand would be a good idea.- gadfium 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that 80% of the NZ material is already in 2005 in New Zealand with idential wording. Most of what I have transferred has been references which were missing from the latter. dramatic (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gadfium, one possible solution might be to turn them all into redirects to 2005 in Australia and New Zealand and 2006 in Australia and New Zealand, then create those two pages as disambiguation pages to 2006 in Australia etc. Grutness...wha?  05:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a better idea than my one.- gadfium 06:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom - articles add little encyclopaedic value. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2009 (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.