Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australasia (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australasia (Australia and New Zealand)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, recently created, is a point-of-view fork of Australasia. The article creator has not satisfactorily explained, or has deflected explaining, why the content in this article cannot be dealt with in the parent article, nor have they attempted to do so. Notices were placed on the talk pages of Australia and New Zealand, and the fork was redirected; the creator(s) -- and I am certain that there is a certain degree of sockpuppetry happening, as there are a number of IPs and at least one registered user who appear to hold the same stance -- restored the article. At the very least, the content can be merged into the parent, but for it to flourish violates policy. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a POV fork. The Australasia article details several different definitions of Australasia, which cover different landmasses. There is already a separate article which deals with Australasia as a bioregion and the article listed for deletion is one which deals with another definition of Australasia - that of Australia and NZ. It would not be appropriate to detail all definitions of Australasia on the one page and it is better the Australasia page remains as a sort of disambig page with links to other pages which give greater detail. --110.32.136.121 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - In your opinion. The Australasia article already deals with this, or should, though of course it can be expanded upon. You haven't even tried to do so. There is little reason why this content cannot be dealt with over there. Other relevant commentary is at Talk:Australia#Australasia. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point I am making is that the Australasia page is not suitable for the content on the Australasia (A & NZ) page because it is pretty obvious that Australia & NZ are very closely tied both culturally and economically, which neither is with other nations that could be considered under other definitions as a part of Australasia. They form a cultural and economic entity commonly called "Australasia".The points are really simple. 1. There are multiple definitions of Australasia. 2. One of these is Australia and NZ. 3. Australia and NZ form a cultural, political and economic bloc as Western democracies distinct from the other nations of the region. 4. There is a difference between an article discussing the bilateral Australia-NZ relationship and one which examines them as a regional bloc (details of a single market, demography of people who can move across the national border w/out restriction, important population centre, combined organisations and regulatory authorities, etc.) This is an area in which I have done a considerable amount of research and I am happy to footnote anything that others feel should be footnoted. What is not helpful are requests for deletion without proper discussion. Why don't other make a case for why this is the same as other articles and then I can respond to that? Bosonic, I disagree with your view on this, but am happy to make my case. Merbabu, get your facts straight. I have provided ample examples of "Australasia" being used to refer to Australia and NZ and could easily provide more. If you have never heard of it being used in this manner you clearly do not know much about this topic.--110.32.136.121 (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your riposte above simply iterates why this article is a POV fork: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." You insist on maintaining it despite current articles which can or should deal with the topic matter: there is nothing I see that requires a separate article as such. There has been sufficient discussion, and you have not even attempted to discuss making 'Australasia' a DAB beforehand, but there nonetheless appear to be article ownership issues at work here. Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Bosonic, you just keep stating this is a "POV fork". There is no attempt here to present anything other than a neutral point of view. As I have stated so many times there is currently no article about Australia and NZ as a single economic and demographic entity. The bilateral relationship is a different matter. The definitions of Australasia are diverse and deserve separate treatment.--110.32.136.121 (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        but Australia and Nz are *not* a single "economic and demographic entity". that's the point. --Merbabu (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This nomination is incomplete. It has no header, nor does it appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. All info is either redundant (repeated under other articles) and/or synthesized. Most fundamental of all is the basic tenant of this article being wrong - australasia is not Aust + NZ. What's next? PNG + aust = Oceania? Or USA + Mexico = north ameriica? When I requested citation the tag was removed. That the "australasia GDP" figure was the sum of nz and aust GDP referenced to IMF pages on each seperate country shows synthesis. --Merbabu (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this illustrates the problem. Australasia is not an economic block like the EU. --Merbabu (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In many aspects Australia and NZ already function as a single economic market. In fact, John Key arrives in Melbourne tomorrow for a 4 day trip to Aus to discuss further integrating the two economies into a complete single economic market and announce a timetable for the establishment of a common Australasian border. --110.32.136.121 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Australasia is a notable topic; it's a very commonly used term, and it certainly warrants an article - the sources would be abundant. This said, it should be at Australasia, and the current tone of the article seems a little bit bizarre. Rebecca (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question. Rebecca, how do you see this article as differing from Australia-New Zealand relations and Australasia? Cheers--Merbabu (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I would suggest that "Australasia" in this sense is an historical term and the article needs to be virtually completely re-written. Australia-New Zealand relations very adequately covers the current situation and Australasia covers the geography but Australasia in this sense, I feel, refers to the era from first settlement until really into the 1950s when the people of the two countries saw themselves all as Britons transposed to the South Pacific with very little difference between the colonies on the mainland, Tasmania or New Zealand. This started to fall apart when NZ did not join the federation and now some New Zealanders see it as a mildly pejorative term (a professional association I am a member of changed its name from Australasian to Australia and New Zealand a few years ago to keep the NZers happy - personally I wanted to tell them to p**s off and form their own association). If the article survives,even say as Australasia (historical term) I would like to put it on my to do list to re-write emphasizing this angle. Porturology (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is clearly no agreement on which countries constitute Australasia, (I would certainly include PNG and am not sure about including NZ in all contexts) hence the article's existence is POV. dramatic (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have indicated, this article is an unnecessary fork (although I don't think it qualifies as a POV-fork) and the information in the article is dealt with in other articles. The title is confusing as it implies that the term "Australasia" refers to Australia and New Zealand. It doesn't. Historically Australasia has referred to a vaguely defined area encompassing Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. For political reasons western New Guinea was generally excluded but, in recent years it has expanded to cover all of New Guinea. Australasia is adequately covered at Australasia. The ties between Australia and New Zealand are addressed at Australia-New Zealand relations and can be expanded if necessary. This article is redundant. Any rewrite, as suggested by some editors, would only serve to perpetuate this redundancy. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Everything here is already covered in both Australasia and Australia-New Zealand relations. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unwarranted fork of Australasia. XLerate (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to existing articles Australasia and Australia-New Zealand relations.-gadfium 03:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the compelling reasons given above.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This material could easily be merged into Australasia where it would make more sense. Having multiple articles for what amount to different but related usages of a term when all the usages could easily be covered in one place is confusing and just invites POV forks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present, I see nothing worth merging which does not duplicate other articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 5 references and 1 note not one of which support the term. There is nothing a rewrite could achieve as this is a synth at best and at worst its a POVfork. Gnan garra 10:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to Australasia and the various articles on the two countries and their relations Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork of Australasia which incorrectly asserts that the main use of the term Australasia is for Australia and New Zealand alone, whereas most uses of the term include Papua New Guinea (far more than the number which include New Zealand, from what I've seen, which is often considered primarily part of Polynesia). Grutness...wha? 01:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of Australasia has a long history, particularly in the nineteenth century prior to Australasian federation, but also in recent years as Australia and New Zealand have come together to form a single market. News reports today have John Key talking of a "combined Australasian unit" of 26 million people. Anyone who doubts the concept of Australasia should really read some of the work of some of NZ's leading historians - Philippa Mein Smith and James Belich amongst others make it very clear that Australia and NZ historically and increasing presently form a single socio-economic unit. --Mastronarde (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of that is a fine argument for why we have the article Australasia - it doesn't explain why we need this separate fork of that article which covers a lot of the same ground. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although the concept of "Australasia == Australia+NZ" seems worth discussing, it's such a subtle point that it's never going to work well as an article. Best dealt with under Australasia and Aus-NZ Relations, as discussed. Having this as an article is like having America (United States) (redirect), Old Europe (very specifically about the term, rather than any discussion of geography etc), etc... Stevage 15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australasia and/or Australia-New Zealand relations. I agree that we don't particularly need this article and Australasia, but on the other hand it has plenty of useful information; I'd rather see that merged into other articles than lost if at all possible. Robofish (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.