This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Australia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
I have nominated this article for deletion as it is clearly an article written to promote the subject, his business. It has been edited by the subject and people close to him as an advertisement which is strictly not allowed on Wikipedia. JimmethMM (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weird article. Reads as original essay into a topic. The article content does not match the title, it focuses on random facts on old educational institutions rather than what you would expect from a page entitled 'cultural institutions in Australia'. The page was also created in 2006, with no notable contributions since SJD Willoughby (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an article can be written about the impact of the First Fleet, etc on the creation of Australia's cultural landscape, which this source has, but it would be easier to start over. I also don't think that's a representative sample of early Australian cultural organizations and certainly not a description for two hundred years later either. StarMississippi17:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you created this article 18 years ago, I would argue that this article will not see any improvements. I would actually argue that this article cannot be improved as the current scope does not match the title. As the previous comment states, it would be better to delete the article and allow future editors to restart either an article about the current contents under a more relevant name or a more relevant article under the current name SJD Willoughby (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and improve. It covers a legitimate topic. If anybody had wanted to write a summary article on high culture in Australia during the last 20 years, they could easily have written it.--Grahame (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the VFL Women's competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates eight articles.
On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG, and this competition does not garner the level of coverage or references to justify having season-by-season articles. Existing references across all nine articles are almost exclusively non-independent sources (from the league's website, clubs' websites and scores databases), occasionally with a brief WP:ROUTINE article about the grand final result; in particular, although the recent articles have healthy-looking reference counts, it's largely padded by short non-independent, routine articles from club websites which fill out the tables of coaches, captains and best-and-fairest winners. WP:BEFORE searches for "VFL Women's" and "VFL Women's season", Google-filtered for news and excluding afl.com.au results, and the results are a very thin collection of local newspaper clippings which are closer to human interest stories than sports WP:SIGCOV.
Speedy keep: Competition receives WP:SIGCOV from what is left of the News Corporation legacy media, both at the statewide and local level. ProQuest has approx 400 keyword filtered references (there was 804 on my first pass through) for "VFL women" for the 2016 season alone, with spikes around the Grand Final and VFL/W Awards; across News, Fairfax/Nine and other Australian news sources. I find this AfD to be WP:POINTY and disingenuous. Merging these forks back into VFL Women's would result in an unweildy mess of an article. If the state-level competition of a women's Australian football competition does not warrant the little amount of referenced information currently present, are we WP:BUILDWP with useful encyclopedic content for future readers? Storm machine (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how exactly is this a Speedy Keep 2c (making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion)? Aspirex (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the Talent League Girls competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates the six articles listed below.
On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG. This competition does not garner the level of coverage or references about its seasons and results to justify having season-by-season articles. I include the italicised caveat because, as this is the main underage recruitment competition in Victoria, the league's players and structure do receive some non-routine individual coverage, as any WP:BEFORE search will attest; but this coverage is mostly focussed on the league's function as an under-aged talent pathway. The seasons themselves (i.e. who won/lost, grand finalists, etc.) receive only passing WP:ROUTINE coverage. Existing references in all six articles are sparse, and either come from databases or non-indepenent sources.
I see no valid alternative to deletion, and that all content worth saving is already found on the main Talent League Girls page.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all part of the same bundle of seasons:
I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the Talent League competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates the 25 articles listed below.
On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG. This competition does not garner the level of coverage or references about its seasons and results to justify having season-by-season articles. I include the italicised caveat because, as this is the main underage recruitment competition in Victoria, the league's players and structure do receive a decent amount of non-routine individual coverage, as a WP:BEFORE search will attest; but this coverage is all primarily focussed on the league's function as an under-aged talent pathway. The seasons themselves (i.e. who won/lost, grand finalists, etc.) receive only passing WP:ROUTINE coverage. I note also that 19 of the 25 articles (those from 2000–2018) are currently based entirely on a single database reference, and those which aren't are almost entirely from non-independent sources. I see no valid alternative to deletion and that all content worth saving is already found on the main Talent League page.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all part of the same bundle:
@Govvy: TRAINWRECK is a term for AfDs that cover many topics, but fail because the topics are too dissimilar – some are notable, others aren't. But surely any given TAC Cup season will be about as notable as the next? What makes you think TRAINWRECK applies here? – Teratix₵02:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is possible that I did not make clear enough that these pages are all different seasons of the same competition with different sponsored names. Aspirex (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Aspirex and Teratix: Because on my first look, I assumed the AfD was for two different leagues. I didn't say don't delete, I just felt it was too much on one AfD. Maybe splitting between two AfDs might have been easier to manage for some people such as myself. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a strong case for deletion on the face of it – I would be surprised if enough sources exist for individual seasons of a state-level underage development competition. The point Aspirex makes about TAC Cup coverage mainly focusing on individual players or general aspects of competition structure, not specific results, rings true to me. – Teratix₵02:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aspirex, this AFD is not formatted correctly for a bundled nomination. You can't just write down a list of linked articles and consider them to be included in this nomination, our closing tool, XFDcloser will not recognize them as nominated articles. Please review the instructions at WP:AFD for nominating multiple articles and format this nomination correctly. No matter how this discussion is closed, this needs to happen. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!05:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources when searching in Google news, books and Scholar. Sources 4-11 merely confirm winners but are not significant coverage about the award itself. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promo piece on a non-notable businessperson. The sources look plentiful but are a mix of passing (or no) mentions, the subject commenting on something, and primary sources, none of which contributes anything towards notability. The one possible exception is the Swagger piece, but it's borderline at best, and in any case alone nowhere near enough. BEFORE search finds nothing better. This was draftified but moved back, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming consensus moves in the direction of draftification I find that acceptable. But it cannot stay in main space in the state it is in. So my alternate !vote is draftify. I note the creating editor feels them to be notable. They should have the chance to prove it in the relative peace and quiet of Draft space if they wish. I'm sure (0.95 probability) that the nominator would agree with that.
@Edvardd: I don't want to open a discussion between us unless we use your or my talk page, but you may wish to consider modifying your opinion to send this back to Draft. There are technical reasons under WP:DRAFTIFY which mean such a move requires consensus after its sudden move back to Main Space. I doubt anyone will resist draftification, but I have been incorrect before. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the article should be kept because the subject is a notable figure in the field of rare earth mineral extraction and mining. He has been quoted or mentioned in over a dozen articles on Mining.com alone, in addition to other reputable industry publications. You can find relevant examples through this search: Google Search for Pini Althaus on mining.com.
Furthermore, he has been featured and interviewed by well-known media outlets, including:
These sources highlight his expertise and significant presence in the industry, which clearly establishes his notability. For these reasons, I am in favor of keeping the article. Edvardd (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rather than perform a full source analysis, I have visited all the current references and those suggested above. I see primary sources, churnalism of PR pieces, interviews with the subject (we do not care what he says, only what is reported about him), and press releases and not one single reference the verify notability. I could not reach anything behind a paywall. WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia, and these references are wholly insufficient to verify the subject's notability. They do show that he exists. Many are covering the corporation, or the market, but not the subject 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in spite of how over-done the article is. There are sources that consider him an expert and has received much coverage on the complicated topic of rare earths and metals mining. he has plenty of national coverage and mentions as an expert .Its clear that Althaus has also played a significant role in shaping U.S. policy on rare earth minerals, advising both the Trump and Biden administrations and contributing to key legislation such as the RARE Act and the Permanent Magnet Act. His expertise has been featured in all major media outlets covering rare earths and precious metals mining like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Yahoo and Forbes.
Delete The article isn't sure about a single thing. "It was probably located in the suburb of Ottoway, South Australia." "It is unclear when the station opened." "There is no longer any trace of the station." If you can't say a single verifiable fact about a subject, it should not have an article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find enough sources to establish notability via NBOOK. At present, the article relies on several primary sources, though I added a single review of the series (Aussie Reviews). I've searched the usual book review sources (Google, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and Google Scholar) to no avail. I suggest redirecting to the author. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book gave me what feels like an absurd amount of false positives, but I was able to find two paragraphs of coverage in The Age. I feel this is a bit too short though, and I'm not sure if Aussie Reviews is a blog or not. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!01:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. False positives is right. I hoped the author might link some press on his website, but he doesn't, though he does have a set of teaching notes ([1]). This suggests to me that plenty of Australian children might have been familiar with this book through school, but that it isn't that likely to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. The book was published in the 1990s, so there might be some coverage of it hiding in the digitization gap. The three books in this series are probably best dealt with in a single article, but since that doesn't exist, a redirect seems good for now. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review provides 133 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A warm welcome to the condescension-free zone that is the final chapter in Brisbane-based author James Moloney's trilogy, which began with the award-winning Dougy and Gracey. Moloney has tackled one of the toughest topics facing contemporary Australian society _ the vexing issue of reconciliation _ and has done so in a way that appeals to young readers without talking down to them. The characters are so real you can almost touch them, their turbulent emotions so fully realised you can't help but be moved. ..."
The review provides 135 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Unlike the three other books, Angela is ostensibly written for older readers its protagonists have already graduated from secondary school and are now undergoing the familiar rites of passage to adulthood. However, starting uni, finding part-time work and falling in love are all incidental to the narrative because the novel is more interested in exploririg issues of black and white, literally and figuratively. With scrupulous care, James Moloney measures the tidal waves of emotion that wash over the friendship between Gracey and Angela. When Gracey becomes involved in the indigen- ous students' support group and starts internalising books called The European Invasion of Australia, the close relationship between the two starts to chafe, particularly when white-bread Angela discovers her family's complicity in the "stolen generations". Moloney manages to tread the socio-political minefield with admirable sensitivity."
Briggs, Anne (November 1998). "Gracey's story completed". Magpies. Vol. 13, no. 5. p. 40. ISSN0817-0088. EBSCOhost1295871.
The abstract notes: "Reviews the book, 'Angela,' by James Moloney." I do not have access to the review.
Keep: Per sources from Cunard. The two newspaper articles are shorter than I'd like, but I have access to the Reading Time source, which is a bit longer than the other two articles (3 paragraphs), which imo is enough to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!19:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Company doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Article read like an advertisement before that material was deleted, but I did a before search, and didn't come up with much aside from company profiles on different sites; nothing in the way of actual new releases, press, etc. Seems like this should be deleted OR redirected/merged to The Adecco Group. If I'm missing anything, I'll gladly rescind. SPF121188(talk this way)(my edits)18:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Professional NRL player who debuted and scored points (conversions and tries), sources present and can be added, a lot of other similar articles of young NRL players have less sources (e.g. Jesse McLean) ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject simply fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant sources. No independent significant sources can be found in the article, per below assessment, and no significant sources have been presented here. Closing admin should note that Wikipedia isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL so if other editors cannot find multiple significant sources covering the article, then it should be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I don't think there's any reason an apparent synonym (even if accepted?) should have its own article. Taking to AfD instead of BLARing for other opinions. CFA💬21:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete This is a valid species See here - the databases seem to have been clarified - I will update with a speciesbox and mod. genus page. It may have been me that I wrote "apparent synonym" as a way of flagging the problem: these anomolies sometimes crop up. Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update - this appears to be a valid species - clarified on 2 databases - I can't find anything elsewhere at the moment. This should not be deleted in any case - better to redirect to genus page with explanation if it turns out not to be valid. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ctenomorpha marginipennis. This is a phasmid, and as per Phasmida Species File (to my knowledge the authoritative source on the order) is a synonym for C. marginipennis. Note that the GBIF entry cited above [2] references the same diagnosis as the one cited for the accepted stick insect classification (Gray, 1833) and also cites the PSF. Gray's text clearly places the species as a phasmid [3]; of the very few Scholar hits for the combination [4], not one concerns Plecoptera. I assume that Diura was found to be preoccupied by the stonefly genus and had to be vacated, but whatever - there seems to be no current weight to considering this a valid Plecoptera taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diura - which is a valid genus and there is an explanation of this, with a link to C. marginipennis. I think @Elmidae is correct, but [i] any unsuspecting reader would look to the genus name first and [ii] there is still the anomolous GBIF entry (usually quite reliable) out there. I will put the taxobar on the talk page for future reference. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er... no, absolutely not. Diura chronus is an accepted synonym of Ctenomorpha marginipennis, and that is where it must redirect. We do not redirect Balaena gibbosa, a synonym for the gray whale Eschrichtius robustus, to the (existing but inapplicable) genus Balaena; we redirect it to the correct species article. GBIF itself cites the phasmid diagnosis. If anything, occurrence in the species list at the Diura page is a GBIF error, and certainly not something we ought to mirror. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may be all be true and noone is contesting the fact that it is one (of several) synonyms for C. marginipennis, but evidently this also is a name which starts with "Diura". I think it is quite useful and important to point-out, especially for non-specialists, that these issues with nomenclature do occur ... Roy Bateman (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be served by redirecting the reader to a peripherally related page. Placing a note at Ctenomorpha marginipennis would be the way to do that - if there is good sourcing for details on a reassignment, which I so far have not seen. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise I have re-drafted as disambiguation. I hope we agree that this page should not be deleted and some explanation would be useful (I first came here via genus Diura) - also note it has a Wikidata item. The databases etc. can always be reviewed in future. Roy Bateman (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments being made for two different Redirect target articles and we need to settle on one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a third, straightforward option - keep this page as a brief 'disambiguation' (as drafted): at least until the database conflict is cleared-up. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page is a list of archives; search for 'Vandenberg' has no results
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Keep for now. The two more promising references are missing from the source review. Historical figure. Absolutely no BLP concern. gidonb (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as the source analysis doesn't instill confidence in a Keep. Any rebuttal to it? Please provide the sources you think are missing from the table. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my source table. Thanks LibStar for the ping. My hope was that having seen the source table, someone would be able to add a source that could demonstrate he met GNG. The sources I cannot access are being used to support only extremely minimal information, which makes me believe that there is no other information available in those sources either. Without any information on him from reliable sources, he cannot be notable and thus I must agree with the nominator. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This rider captained his British team for four years in the highest league, in addition to representing his country. Four new sources have also been added to the article including source heading being his name. Pyeongchang (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [5][6][7][8] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we'll see more participation. Also, to the nominator, in the future, please provide a more comprehensive deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE has been done. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources I added.
The article notes: "Barrister by day; sexy singer by night. That's the life that has been led by Melbourne barrister, and now pop sensation, Bowie Jane... ... The songstress, whose story has received international press coverage in recent days, is a practising criminal barrister in Melbourne, but she managed to keep her musical pastime a secret from colleagues and clients – until now at least."
The interview notes: "I'm an Australian who has lived in Los Angeles for six years and I’m loving it!" "I was living a very secret double life until my story was exposed by the Daily Mail in the UK which was crazy at the time – I was front page of every major paper in the UK and on every radio show. My double life is that I'm a criminal trial attorney having worked in money laundering and tax fraud but am also a professional DJ singer-songwriter! Basically, I would work as a lawyer during the day, then rip off my conservative clothes and get on stage at night. The lawyers didn't know I was a singer and the musicians didn’t know I was a lawyer. Once my story became public knowledge around the world, I quit the law and am now a full-time musician. I've been performing since I was a kid and started out in musical theater and madrigal groups believe it or not! I think that's where I first fell in love with harmonies. I then really wanted to be in a band so started doing acoustic duo work and then moved into the band arena, started songwriting and then releasing in the UK and touring. ... I love revving up a crowd!"
Doreian, Robyn (25 August 2013). "All out, all change". Lifestyle. The Sun-Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. p. 12. Retrieved 1 September 2024. While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star.
The article notes: "But for Bowie Jane (her stage name), law was an obvious career. "My brain has always been lawyer-ish. When I was 12, I had written contracts with my parents stating who would pay for what in my upbringing." ... While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star. ... Jane now lives in a share house in Camden. Meetings with management, publishers and performances cram her days. She has also been doing radio interviews to promote her second single, Bad Boy."
"Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 13 October 2018. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
The Billboard chart notes: "Busted Bowie Jane – 21 LAST WEEK – 21 PEAK POSITION – 6 WEEKS ON CHART"
I also found this unreliable law profile source, with her real name:
"Miranda Ball". Meldrum's List. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The law profile notes: "Miranda's experience is extensive having run high profile White Collar Crime Litigations as both a Partner then Barrister. Her recent work includes the Bernie Madoff litigations in Bermuda & the UK, Operation Wickenby, Australian Crime Commission investigations and examinations, Special Leave Applications to the High Court of Australia, Legal Professional Privilege Claims, Constitutional Challenges, Children's Court hearings, Australian Taxation Office litigations/investigations and Coronial Inquests."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to get a second opinion on these recently located sources. Thanks. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've looked at the first three articles found by @Bas/TechGeek105 and they all provide significant coverage of the subject in my opinion. The Sun-Herald one looks more like a traditional newspaper; Lawyers Weekly and VoyageLA both say they have editorial oversight. The article itself is much better in terms of citations and content compared to when it was proposed for AfD. Nnev66 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]