Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Points of interest related to New Zealand on Wikipedia |
|---|
| Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup |
This is a collection of 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 the list on this page:
- To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
-
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You can also tag the AfD by adding
- {{subst:delsort|New Zealand}}<small>—~~~~</small>
- to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to New Zealand.
Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania
Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand/archive.| Purge page cache | Watch this page |
Contents |
[edit] New Zealand
[edit] Dominic Hoey
insufficient notability; references do not meet WP:BIO - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 23:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. There's a meta-question in play: is publication in Landfall sufficient to qualify for notability? If yes, then Hoey is notable; if no, then he isn't. It's too early for me to opine on that right now. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. I'm having trouble even finding this guy's name somewhere in this publication. I scrolled around, tried a trext string earch on the web page, but haven't yet found him... Besides, I don't know that the one mention is enough for WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Note that he's listed in the web page as "Tourettes", the pseudonym mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hardly a notable mention, then; no one could tell who that is unless they already know teh guy AND know he's been published. How else can we tell if he's notable enough? (I'm at home on idal-up, so searching further is taking FOREVER.) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete. In searching, I found his Bebo page. I'm going to say that publication in Landfall is enough of an assertion of notability that the article is immune to speedy deletion. However, I don't see enough out there to get him to meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. There isn't enough to evidence that the subject is notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As above, one publication in one literary journal doesn't really meet what we would seem to require; a lack of outside coverage makes notability very scarce. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, that his name doesn't appear in the references makes them useless as any indication of notability.-gadfium 06:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Matt Couper
conflict of interest: article created by subject, self-promotional, dubious notability Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, unless "presented in major collections throughout New Zealand" can be referenced, and includes public collections as per WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability seems marginal at best, no sources other than the artist's own website, and autobiography.-gadfium 22:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. All I can find are some group exhibitions [1], [2] and a $250 prize [3]. Not notable yet.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NN & WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This 4 year old article fails WP:BIO and independent WP:RS and was likely made by the subject of the article himself here Artene50 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Slightly stronger than weak delete. Although WP:UNKNOWNHERE and its corollary are lousy arguments for AfD, I'd have to say that, having worked in the New Zealand art scene for many years as a reviewer and artist, I have heard of him, though not very much. I know he's exhibited at the Sarjeant in Wanganui, though, which is one of the country's better know provincial galleries. Whether it's enough to meet notability standards here, though, I doubt. And I can't find much evidence of his work being in major collections nationwide. BTW, "Matt couper" +art -wikipedia returns some 650 ghits. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't find any reliable sources for this article. Soxred 93 03:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no claim of notability. An artist is expected to have some semi-notable art. --T-rex 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't turn up any substantial news references to this fellow, and being in collections doesn't really prove notability to my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Out Of Kilter Scandal
An article with a one-sided point of view that falls just short of attack, containing a number of unsourced statements which violate WP:BLP, and which covers a three-day old news story which hasn't spread beyond New Zealand. Neither the phrase "out of Kilter scandal" nor "Macleangate" appear anywhere searchable other than this article. (I expect they may occur in the members-only web forum in question). Google news has a total of seven hits, being one or two stories in three of NZ's metropolitan daily newspapers, one radio story and one television news story (of three significant news channels which might have covered it). Two of the four references are from the forum itself and are currently returning 404 errors, and the external link requires forum membership. Let's face it, this is a storm in a teacup, and I have a strong suspicion that one or both of the main contributors has a Conflict of Interest. If there is significant/ongoing coverage in six months time, then it might be worth an article, but not now. dramatic (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -dramatic (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable news story, with the only reliable source quoted being an article in The Press, and the other sources being valueless.-gadfium 09:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable, serious WP:BLP problems. Huon (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
From a historical perspective yes, this story is little more than a storm in a teacup but with regard to the censoring actions of Maclean, and censorship in the New Zealand media in general, this is a highly important cybertext. I have a suspicion that this is only the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.232.78 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, then once a couple of reliable sources (say The Listener and North and South have done in-depth articles analysing that, we can report on it. Until then, any discussion of censorship is Original research rather than verifiable fact and it ain't allowed in this encyclopedia. dramatic (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is understood & in appreciation of your seeming role here as content moderator but are you not merely being overzealous ? The content in this document is factual and confirmed as so. These matters have to be covered in YOUR choice of media too? In what sense are you qualified to make these calls please ? Maybe the music industry and those who are involved should be those best qualified to understand and report upon this matter; surely. We are definitely open though to discussion and debate / hearing further guidelines for information improvement nonetheless.
[edit] Categories
[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)
Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.
