Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Products Manufactured 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. JForget 02:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Products Manufactured in Australia and New Zealand

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems like an essay trying to make a point. Would need to be renamed probably, is half list half essay. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Naturally, I vote for keep.  I've removed the list, toned down the language (e.g. removed "ever-decreasing" and the reference to the impact of the decline of manufacturing on the balance of payments), and added a section on another major Australian industry, the chemical industry.  What remains is a brief, (I believe) impartial description of two major industries, some statistics about the overall change in size of the industry, and links to three relevant search engines.
 * I believe it now fits within the scope of Wikipedia, as described by the Five pillars.


 * It covers an important encyclopaedic topic.
 * It is mostly objective satistics.
 * The information is verifiable; it has 8 references for a 1-page article that is mostly headings!
 * The page is clearly still a work-in-progress. However, I argue it is a more important topic, and a more finished article than many.  You're welcome to put a "stub" tag on, if you think it is too unfinished.  When I clicked on "random article" 8 times, half of the results were stubs (Santa Marinha, Vila Nova de Gaia, Mirko Tomassoni, Mirko Tomassoni, Red Rock Cider), on topics which are less important than the manufacturing industry of an industrialised G20 nation.
 * LachlanA (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Economy of Australia and Economy of New Zealand. Either that or rename as Manufacturing in Australia and New Zealand, since the article itself states, "This page describes the history and current state of Australia's manufacturing industry", not its "products". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or Rename as above.  It looks much better.  I'll look at what you removed, and see what we can add back in. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Benjar is correct, although it's pretty basic stuff, the article doesn't have any real factual substance to it. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Manufacturing in..." sounds good to me. Other major industries (agriculture, mining, tourism) have their own pages. Thanks for your constructive input! LachlanA (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  --  Bduke    (Discussion)  10:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is primarily original research as is shown, by among other things by the section /* Search engines */. In the attempt to puff ANZAC production, the author makes transition errors between sources and text, such as converting "Tasmania is the world's biggest producer of legal raw opiates." to "Tasmania produces 40% of the worlds opiates." which is a very different thing. Another example, the author coverts "Australia has two ageing petrochemical complexes." to "Australia has a substantial chemical industry, including the manufacture of many petrochemicals." Real content might be worth saving, this article doesn't have real content, just puffery. --Bejnar (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete, seems to be written as an essay. The topic is "products manufactured in Australia and New Zealand", but almost the entire text talks about the history and financial situation of Australia and New Zealand, not products. J I P  | Talk 07:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  --  Bduke    (Discussion)  02:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Manufacturing in Aussie and NZ is linked by virtue of geography and the Closer Economic Relations agreement but this is not a justifiction for the article. Manufacturing in Australia and Manufacturing in New Zealand are approp articles but an article covering both together is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Benjar: Please read beyond the first line of each of the pages referred to.  The figure of 40% for opiate production was from the sentence "Tasmania supplies some 40 percent of world demand for raw narcotics for the pharmaceuticals industry", rather than the first line of the reference.  The substantial chemical industry is not merely the two ageing petrochemical complexes; the reference mentions plants in Victoria (Geelong as well as Altona), NSW, Queensland and WA.  You're right that this article doesn't have much content -- then label it a stub (like 50% of Wikipedia articles).  If it has too much content to be a stub, then leave it as an article.  Anyway, I give up...LachlanA (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2010 (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.