Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Settler colonialism in Australia

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settler colonialism in Australia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article does not abide by NPOV requirements. It infers that Indigenous Australians have been eliminated and that settler colonialism is an ongoing process. Nothing that the article might cover were it to be expanded could not be covered by the Australian frontier wars or history of Indigenous Australians articles.

Not a single claim in the article, except for that in the last sentence, is an encyclopaedic proposition. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Will Thorpe (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this source indicates in the first line of its abstract that "Settler colonialism continues in Australia today." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic—of how settler colonialism applies to Australia, which is the application of a disputable academic theory, distinct from straight history—is substantially covered in reliable sources cited already in the article. I don't find the deletion rationale to square with our policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep..... .massive amount of academic publications on this topic....article needs expansion not deletion.Moxy🍁 05:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the 2 comments above, but it does need some work. Bduke (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: May need work but is notable with a load of sources on the topic. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – "Needs work" is quite an understatement but we have a few sources to help us get started. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 04:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. The article being in a poor state does not mean it should be deleted. Google scholar and JSTOR searches indicate there is sufficient sourcing on this topic to warrant an article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2024 (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.