Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seri Wati Iku


 * 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__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Seri Wati Iku

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. No effective sources for what is a WP:BLP.  scope_creep Talk  15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. President of territory’s council. NPOL presumes notability as member of province-level legislative body. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the coverage to support WP:NPOL. This a WP:BLP so real WP:SECONDARY references are needed to prove notabilty, not mickey mouse blogs or self-written profiles. That is an absolute and is emphasised in the opening paragraph of the policy.. On the article there is currently 1 non-rs and 2 WP:PRIMARY and one passing mention. The primary sources read like blog entries. At best they prove the person is verifiable and that is about it. WP:THREE is the standard best practice for proving notability. Where is the coverage? Put up three secondary sources that prove she is notability and we can close this.   scope_creep Talk  16:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * While the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is a federal territory, the Shire of Cocos is constituted under Western Australia's local government laws. The territory is non-self-governing so I don't think we can draw equivalence between the shire council and e.g. the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. ITBF (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: My opinion stands that members of the council of the Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands are not awarded WP:NPOL. The council is akin to a county council, with actual judicial and legislative powers residing with the Western Australian government, and with the council only retaining local administrative powers. This is different from, for example, the old Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, which was an autonomous/devolved body within Australia with self-governing powers. A search with both provided names did not provide WP:SIGCOV demonstrating a WP:GNG pass either. Curbon7 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. A bit unfortunate because I'd love to see more content on Australia's external territories, but there's just no coverage to justify an article. The body of which she is a member has limited powers and she doesn't appear to have attained any particular prominence outside of holding office to attract WP:SIGCOV. There's a reason all other entries at List of leaders of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council are red links (and that article should probably be merged to Shire of Cocos). ITBF (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Although I agree this is a borderline case, it seems to me useful to maintain the article for encyclopedic reasons, as proposed by Innisfree987. If the conclusion is deletion, then key items from the article should be merged into Shire of Cocos, maintaining the blue link with a redirect.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: for a combination of factors, inc. an oral history in a national collection, leadership (as discussed above). I'd also like to see more awareness of the context within which her achievements are gained - as a woman from a small territory in Australia, from a specific minority background, that has been historically marginalised, means that sources and coverage will be less likely to feature her at length. Within the context of the Cocos Islands, she is undoubtedly notable Lajmmoore (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Lets examine the new references. The rationale for delete are accurate. A WP:BEFORE was done and nothing was found that was in-depth, secondary and independent. Looking at the refs:
 * Ref 1 Facebook non-rs.
 * Ref 2 [www.shire.cc/en/your-council/meet-the-council.html] WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
 * Ref 3 WP:PRIMARY  Not independent.
 * Ref 4 Profile and passing mention.  Not independent.
 * Ref 5 WP:PRIMARY. Business directory. Not independent.
 * Ref 6 Profile. Not independent.  Why put a profile reference in BLP article? Profiles are non-RS. They are often written by the person themselves. They are WP:SPS sources and WP:PRIMARY at best. It not indepth and its not independent.
 * Ref 7 Oral history interview. WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
 * Ref 8 Passing mention. Not independent.
 * Ref 9 [parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F54bb371d-6a22-4bf5-8caa-4760be68ece2%2F0001;orderBy=priority,doc_date-rev;query=Dataset%3AcomJoint;rec=13;resCount=Default] Government document. WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.

There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of it. In the WP:BLP it states '''Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.''' This is a complete crock.  scope_creep Talk  10:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Scope and Curbon. Lack of SIGCOV in independent secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, begrudgingly. There's just not enough SIGCOV for an article. A redirect may be proper to the list article. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to List of leaders of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council where the subject is mentioned as an ATD. I do not think the sourcing is sufficient to pass GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That article is non-sourced and is a list of red links. There is no encyclopeadic information in it. I will prod it today. I have sent it to Afd as somebody stupidly removed the prod.    scope_creep Talk  04:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m withdrawing my participation here and unwatching due to recurrent incivility 1 2 from the nominator. Not worth it. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lajmmoore, borderline case but appropriate for keeping in the context of a smaller territory. There are likely to be more offline sources not available from a quick Google search. Deus et lex (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a WP:BLP. Where is evidence for such a such a statement? Do you have three secondary sources that prove the subject notable?    scope_creep Talk  21:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you know anything about the Cocos Islands? The sources are likely to be offline and difficult to get hold of. Stop being rude and actually engage with the subject matter rather than just nominating things without checking. Deus et lex (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment The first reference, although posted on Facebook, is from Australia's national broadcaster. It therefore seems to meet WP:IS. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Its hardly in-depth though and its another routine report the candidate syle ref. A good attempt has been made updating the article per WP:HEYMANN, but this is a WP:BLP. Its states in the policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. I'm not still not seeing it here. The refs are a mishmash of routine news of appointments, position documents, profiles and other salient tangenital links. It seems very poor. Meet the team and election guide??  scope_creep Talk  05:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - agree with MrsSnoozyturtle. Let's not extend the BLP policy beyond what it says. Deus et lex (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It says exactly that. Its was copied directly from the policy. I forgot I'd posted it previously. I think you should probably read the policy, since you have provided no envidence to prove your !vote entry.  The facebook ref is non-rs. You may consider it potentially independent, but its only five lines long and looks as though it comes from a press-release. Its not in-depth and is an extemely poor reference. I wouldn't use it any article I wrote myself, particularly if it was a WP:BLP. If that was all the coverage I could found (the refs in the article), prior to writing the article, I wouldn't have written the article in the first place. It is an extremely poor quality article. At best, it verifies the person exists but that is all.    scope_creep Talk  13:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that the WP:BASIC isn't met here just yet. It would make sense to either delete this or -- as some have smartly suggested -- redirect to another relevant article until the source material can satisfy notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 June 2023 (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.