Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katiki Point Lighthouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sr13 03:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katiki Point Lighthouse

Katiki Point Lighthouse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article has little to no notability as there are no other independent sources I can find that report on it. It also has only one internal encyclopaedic link. Also note that there are no articles regarding "Katiki Point" or even "Katiki. Reginmund 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There is now, not that that's particularly relevant. Keep. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I found some sources of info: NZ Gov't Photos and details and More general info Most of the rest of what I found was travel- or photography-related, however. The article clearly needs work, but I find this lighthouse no less notable than most of the rest on Wikipedia. —Travistalk 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It is also known as Moeraki or Katigi, so searching on these terms will find additional articles, like Moeraki and Moeraki Boulders on WP plus additional ones via Google.--Mendors 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Other New Zealand lighthouses have articles, so why have a red link to this one? The article may need work with regards to refs, but it's only 2 days old. Further more, look at Moeraki. It's commonly known as the Moeraki Lighthouse but that's not actually the name bestowed upon it from Maritime NZ --Hayden5650 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Perusing the links I previously posted will easily clarify the name issue per Hayden5650. I also point out that lack of a WP article is not in itself evidence of non-notability. —Travistalk 22:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added additional references to the article, including linking it with some Maori traditions which are covered by some NZ government treaty settlement legislation.--Mendors 23:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In the US, all lighthouses are fairly important as local tourist attractions as well as due to their history, restoration/conservation efforts, etc. Unless there's reason to think the situation is very different in NZ, this should be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Bduke 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A notable lighthouse and the article is now sourced. --Bduke 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sourced article and lighthouse seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This lighthouse has been working for 125 years, I wonder if Wikipedia will last so long. It's a good article now and well sourced. Nick mallory 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps we could wind up this discussion now? There seems to be an overwhelming majority of editors in favor of keeping the article. --Hayden5650 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Historic and restored lighthouse. --Oakshade 01:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep deserves to be kept for above reasons Delighted eyes 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Other lighthouses in New Zealand are notable, why not this one. Malathos 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. In addition to the other arguments, this lighthouse's link with Yellow-eyed penguins, and Janice Jones work while living there make this really quite notable.--Limegreen 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per the above, the current version of this article conveys notability. Burntsauce 17:42, 31 July 2007 (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.