Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Points of interest related to New Zealand on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to New Zealand. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|New Zealand}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|New Zealand}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania

Contents

[edit] New Zealand

[edit] South Otago High School

South Otago High school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nothing about this school -- including the two notable alumni listed, and the 2002 local menigococcus outbreak leading the government to vaccinate its students -- indicates that there would be non-trivial external sources that we could use to write a good article about it. Tagged for notability since June, but no one has addressed the concern. Looking through the first few dozen results of a Google search (yielding 169 unique hits altogether), I see nothing promising. Prodded and de-prodded. Pan Dan 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Trying to put this AFD together I noticed that the article I am nominating is South Otago High school, but there is also a South Otago High School about the same school. Participants in this debate will want to look at both articles. Merged. Pan Dan 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for main article, delete the lower-case version. Secondary schools are normally considered worthy of articles.-gadfium 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That depends on the school. Looking here, I see that most recent high school article AFD's resulted in no consensus. (And one recent AFD actually resulted in delete.) But anyway, outcomes of past AFD's don't have anything to do with whether an encyclopedic article can be written about this school. Pan Dan 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that's an interesting link. I believe that all normal New Zealand secondary schools are worthy of articles. I can't say that for all secondary schools around the world, because educational systems differ. I've added the word "normal" without being able to say exactly what I mean by it. However, a proposed school would not usually be worthy of an article. My reasoning stems partly from a back-of-the-envelope calculation: a school of 500 students must have an intake of at least 100 per year (probably more, because a large proportion don't stay a full five years), and when it's existed for 80 years, that's 8000 students (assuming a constant roll, which is not a very safe assumption). There are also quite a number of staff who will have worked there over the years. Many parents will also have had significant interactions with the school. Any place which has affected so many people on a daily basis seems notable. Another part of my reasoning is that school articles are often a place where Wikipedians start editing, and they then move on to more diverse articles. I've seen a number of New Zealand editors get started through their secondary school article. I realise that many editors also get started by editing articles on garage bands and that this is not a reason to keep the garage band articles, but schools invariably have official listings and websites, providing some verifiability, they are regularly reported on in local newspapers, and the articles are not (mostly) driven by vanity. It's not at all unusual for a long-standing secondary school such as this one to have a book written about their history. Such books won't be widely available outside the town that they're in, but they can be ordered through interlibrary services within the country.-gadfium 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You make some thoughtful points. The question of notability remains though -- are there external sources about this school that we could use to write a good article about it? To speculate that there may be books out there, somewhere, is not enough -- someone has to actually find those. Searches on Google books and on Amazon show nothing. Pan Dan 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable school, more notable than many that have had keep votes here in the past. Will try to expand and clean up the article when I get a little time (hopefully later today). Grutness...wha? 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hopefully I've managed to spruce it up a little... Grutness...wha? 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, the article looks much better now. The question of notability remains -- I could write an equally detailed article (with pictures!) on many local businesses, using their websites as sources. But these are not good candidtates to be Wikipedia articles -- to show notability the sources have to be external. Pan Dan 14:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Given the opportunity in the next couple of days to get to the local public library, I'll add considerable external sources. Not all sources exist online, you know. There are a considerable number of books that I know of dealing with the area, many of which have more information on the school which - as I said earlier - is one of the most prominent schools in the region. (And before you ask, no, I'm not an ex-pupil of there: quite the opposite, SOHS were my alma mater's biggest rivals!) Grutness...wha? 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Chance of multiple independent reliable sources is high due to nature of subject. --- RockMFR 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, I would think the chances of sources would be low given that this is a local high school -- most local high schools aren't the subjects of non-trivial external sources, and nothing indicates that this one is an exception. (Many high schools have famous alumni -- why would famous alumni induce external publishers to publish articles featuring the school? And the disease outbreak was really something that happened in the town, not the school.) But anyway, what's the point of talking about the chances that there's good coverage out there? To show notability someone has to actually find the sources. I looked and found none. Please do a search yourself instead of speculating. Pan Dan 14:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per RockMFR and also a general feeling pro-schools in WP --BozMo talk 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent, and because it meets my personal notiability standards for High Schools (since WP:SCHOOLS is still not a consensus standard.) — RJH (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (1) "Per precedent" is not a valid reason to keep or delete any article. (2) Even if precedent were a valid reason in general, it makes no sense for high school articles, as most AFD's on those result in no consensus, and a recent one even resulted in delete. Pan Dan 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, the majority of high schools brought to AfD in the last few months have been kept, in some cases speedily. Most of the no consensuses shown at the link you give are for middle schools or lower, though i do admit there are some high schools revceiving that decision. the one deletion you mention was a special case that actually ended up being redirected and smerged into the company which ran that particular private school. I make the tally 16 keeps, 9 no consensus and two deletes in the last month and a half once middle schools and the like are removed from the count, with one of those deletes being for a nineteen-word stub. To claim that this is a case of "mostly no consensus and even deletion" is misleading, to say the least. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with nom. To keep this is in effect to assert more of the highly debatable "all schools are notable" line. Eusebeus 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's more a case of "all high schools with notable alumni are notable". Grutness...wha? 05:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:SCHOOLS and has multiple notable alumni. Silensor 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep cleaned up version is good... passes WP:SCHOOL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Cities and towns in New Zealand rename

The discussion is here.

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stonebridge Estate

Stonebridge Estate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Housing subdivision with just 30 properties, lacks notability SimonLyall 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sharkface217 03:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Montco 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. LastChanceToBe 06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete - It is a stub for a well known country estate by many in Hamilton City. I myself do not live there, it is not self-promotion. Estate is notable because of the way the major farming operation takes place around high-socioeconomic housing.jake971 12:59, 5 December 2006 (NZST)
  • Delete per nom. ← ANAS Talk? 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. Jacob Andrew Talk? 16:23, 7 December 2006 (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.
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 - Proto's comment sums it up nicely. Yomanganitalk 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Auckland waterfront vs. Eden Park debate

This page serves no purpose and there is already nearly identical information at 2011 Rugby World Cup. Furthermore, the sole author continually reverts redirects and merge suggestions as if he (she?) has made this his (her?) pet article. --Jemiller226 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per first part of nom. ViridaeTalk 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well if you say this can't exist, we may as well get rid of this: 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy. --SilvaStorm
Why? Are you saying there is identical information in another article? If so, which one? --Canley 05:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't add speedy deletion tags to this AfD discussion because you disagree with it. No sane admin is going to delete this page anyway. You need to let the AfD run its course. Also, don't remove the AfD notice from the article. --Canley 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This user has a history of this sort of thing. Check his user talk and mine, just barely stopping short of personal attacks to try to save this article. I'd report him, but frankly I just can't be bothered. --Jemiller226 07:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was saying the information was already included in another article, and judging by the article up for afd, doesnt need its own. ViridaeTalk 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note that there is nothing to merge (as mentioned in the nomination). This is also an unlikely search term and so a redirect is probobly unecessary. ViridaeTalk 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, unencyclopedic. (Also, creator should be closely watched - a quick glance at his contribs and talk page suggests unilateral moves and WP:OWN violations by using {{underconstruction}} and leaving the template on after he leaves the page.) – Chacor 11:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Scienter 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Viradae, though I don't think a redirect is neccesary.StayinAnon 17:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. no redirect required. Rafy 20:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep So why is this page allowed to exist: 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy. --SilvaStorm
Maybe because it's completely a different issue whose information isn't already covered elsewhere? If you'd notice, the article for the DVD in question redirects to the article you keep citing, inexplicably, as a reason to keep your article. Therefore there is only one article with the pertinent information, and you've identified it. In this AfD case, there's already an article with all the relevant information and as a result this article is redundant. This is not difficult to understand. Normally I do my best to assume good faith, but your history here (and, frankly, on Lostpedia) make this extremely difficult. I'd suggest you stop attacking me on the talk pages for this article and for my user account, by the way. This isn't personal, never was, and never will be. I even helped out one of your Lost episode articles when I came across it in the stub list, or at least I tried to help it, but I see it's been deleted, too, for the same reasons this one is up for discussion. --Jemiller226 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or failing that redirect to Stadium New Zealand. Very contentious and highly publicised dispute within New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wait, so there are two articles that have this information already and would both be more likely search strings than the AfD'd article? I think that just serves as even more evidence that this is a redundant article. --Jemiller226 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the debate is already well covered at Stadium New Zealand, and to a lesser extent at Eden Park and 2011 Rugby World Cup. There's no need for a redirect, as no one is likely to come across this title by mistake. I'm curious: was the author aware of the Stadium New Zealand article when they began this one? If not, what redirects should be created to make that article easier to find. Waterfront Stadium already exists as a redirect, although I imagine at some point it will have to become a disambiguation page.-gadfium 23:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While it is a notable issue within New Zealand, our articles on Eden Park and Stadium New Zealand already cover it. It is relatively unlikely as a search term. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicates information found elsewhere, and a very unlikely search term (so redirecting would be useless). Proto::type 10:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:47, 3 December 2006 (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.
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 - Yomanganitalk 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canary Data Solutions

Article on small 5 person software firm, appears to have been created by Software Manager of the company. Not quite advertising spam but lacks notability and 100% positive about company. SimonLyall 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE - No claim to notability. James084 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - ditto, corporate spam. better off speedied. Danny 00:41, 3 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_New_Zealand_3ddd.html"