Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry

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 of the debate was rename consensus is to rename to Treaty of Waitangi settlements and claims Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry

Orphaned nom by User:222.153.86.99. They put on the talk page "Really this article has no value and linking it to serious articles attempting to provide NPOV analysis of NZ politics hurts those articles. An article on Treaty of Waitangi claims and there perception by NZ public could however be done in a NPOV manner. I thinks this article should be deleted." Midnighttonight 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight 23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Title is enough to throw it out ~ trialsanderrors 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • OK if the below happens. ~ trialsanderrors 00:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename The term itself (repugnant though it may be!) is in current use; the article needs to be renamed (Treaty of Waitangi grievances perhaps?), de-weasel-worded, and NPOViewed, but it is a legitimate position of the right wing in NZ and shouldn't be deleted. Ziggurat 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to Treaty of Waitangi settlements and claims and process as Ziggurat suggests. I'm going to put it up as New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight under this new name.-gadfium 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per gadfium, although I think "claims and settlements" flows better than "settlements and claims". -- Avenue 01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• rename and expand and per gadfium. Although I would go with Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. the nom still stands as is, as it was orphaned and thus not my doing--Midnighttonight 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. Valid subject but appallingly POV (and potentially racist) title. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Mostlyharmless 01:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename, NPOV and correct factually. --Lholden 01:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename and expand either include briefly within the Treaty of Waitangi page, or expanded article under something like Race Relations in New Zealand. I think Treaty of Waitangi settlement process and Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements are too narrow and don't include half the complaints of the original author, which aren't directly related to the Treaty but happen to be claims expressed by Maori. Tirana 01:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename as per Avenue - Re Midnighttonight's comment, I think the Settlement process would be only one part of the "final" article (which I think would be big enough by itself) r2b2 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per Avenue Brian | (Talk) 02:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and expand. Important topic in New Zealand politics and requires NPOV treatment. It seems that New Zealand Wikipedians are keen to work on this so thats good enough for me. Capitalistroadster 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree. Why is everyone caught up with the name of the article? As Ziggurat pointed out, the phrase is in contemporary use. Just because some might disagree with the validity of the term doesn't mean that the term doesn't exist, nor that documenting it is inherently invalid! Pejorative terms have encyclopaedic entries, f.ex. compare Nigger & N-word. Please respond, I'm interested in your thoughts. Thanks. DavidHallett 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment because the focus of the article is not on the term, but on the idea behind it. The content would best be placed in a context that allows for WP:NPOV discussions of all perspectives rather than a talking point jargon title that implies de-facto agreement with one side of the argument, and this article a discussion of the evolution of the term (if there's enough to say about that) or a redirect to the more general article if there isn't. Ziggurat 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. After consideration of your comment, I now agree with most aspects of your suggestion. It certainly makes sense to move the Grievance Industry diatribe over to Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements and leave the page solely as a discussion on the evolution and etymology of the phrase.

Comment. I've done a quick Knowledge Basket search on the term. It shows up maybe 50 times (compared to 200 for Helengrad, which was considered to be sufficient to avoid deletion). It mainly appears in ACT press releases until 2004, when it started showing up in National statements, with the variant of Winston Peters' "gravy train". That's about all you can say on its etymology. I don't think it needs a page on its own to explain this. --Tirana 00:44, 24 June 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.