Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand

WP:AFD/NZ

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. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not 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. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|New Zealand|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to New Zealand. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board

New Zealand

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. Consensus edges to keep per sources provided. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the piss

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An entry at Wiktionary already exists. A previous AfD nomination with the same rationale closed as keep, but the arguments presented for keep there seem to be of the "I like it" variety. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, South Africa, Ireland, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Agreed that WP shouldn't be a dictionary, but unlike Wolf in sheep's clothing above, this article at least does cite sources discussing the phrase and its origins and use, without the SYNTH. Could probably be trimmed down to a description and a few examples, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst not a dictionary I believe this article has value beyond providing a definition for the phrase, including basic etymology and cultural significance across multiple countries. Current refs aren't exhaustive but provide a decent foundation to why this may meet notability standards.Triplefour (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dictionaries also provide basic etymology and general information about usage, whether it's British, Irish, American, etc. That's what Wiktionary does. Some of the article is also OR. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that article does look like an encyclopedic entry about the phrase as opposed to a dictionary definition. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A fair bit of original content and uncited or poorly cited content has been removed since the preceding comments were made. I don't know if that shifts any of the opinions. Nurg (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has encyclopedic value backed up by references and does not represent a mere dictionary definition. Schwede 66 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources that actually discuss the term are dictionary definitions. The rest of the references are just: 'hey look someone used the term here'.

There are no sources in the article showing this has passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this isn't a dictionary. Additionally the first part of the "Origins" section feels to me like it is itself taking the piss. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reason given by Schwede66 above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilman (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. The nomination is one of a series that has overwhelmed our processes. We’re still working on the November 2024 citations drive and I have been working on finding sources for another article that I’m trying to rescue. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know you can just ask the nomination to be relisted, right? I do not appreciate your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith here and on my talk page. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of sources in the article discussing the etymology of the term. No reason to delete. ResonantDis_tortion 00:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If sources discussing etymology made a term past NOTDICT basically all lemmas could qualify as most have sources discussing their etymology. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 2 December 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cantamath

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

A regional math competition article with no WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wanted to save this and went out in search of sources but nothing was found. It fails all notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 16:07, 25 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.

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. ✗plicit 10:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa

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

Appears to lack notability. I found only one independent reference and it is primary and provides no coverage.

I also nominating the episcopal units:

Traumnovelle (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DIOCESE, but these are above the level of diocese, sitting between diocese and province. But in fact, there are several independent reliable sources in GBooks, and I don't know how the nominator missed them: e.g. Te Hāhi Mihinare | The Māori Anglican Church (published by Bridget Williams Books). St Anselm (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa is the equivalent of an internal ecclesiastical province within the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia and is made up of several diocese equivalents (the other "pihopatangas" nominated), and per WP:DIOCESE these articles are almost always kept. As for sources, StAnselm notes one good source, and there are others: Peter Donovan's The Religions of New Zealanders, Mark Chapman's Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction (section on indigenous leadership in Anglican churches), Anderson, Binney and Harris's Tangata Whenua, Shawn Strout's Of Thine Own Have We Given Thee, and T. John Wright's "The Treaty of Waitangi" in the International Handbook of the Religious, Moral and Spiritual Dimensions in Education, plus coverage in major news outlets like Stuff.co.nz and the NZ Herald. These ecclesiastical units are also covered in Melton and Baumann's Religions of the World, the standard encyclopedic reference to religious organizations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable — the solution to this is improvement from sources, not deletion. DBD 12:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Meets WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE was not done properly.4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, User:Traumnovelle, this is not a correctly formatted bundled nomination. Next time you want to nominate multiple articles, read over the instructions at WP:AFD and follow them exactly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz do you mean with the la tag? I did that at first but it broke: [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 04:43, 1 December 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.

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 both. I do not see how WP:SNOW could have applied here at the time it was claimed. Owen× ☎ 18:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IShowSpeed's tour of Australia and New Zealand

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

This feels WP:TOOSOON and exclusively uses primary and unreliable sources, along with original research in the form of maps. I'm also considering placing an Afd tag on Speed's Europe/Southeast Asia tours since none of Speed's tours seem like they warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. They would be better mentioned briefly in Speed's own article which itself needs a lot of work. This article and the other Speed tour articles appear to be added from the perspective of a fan rather than from a non-neutral perspective. See the IShowSpeed article itself for a list of problems I found with content on his article, and, by extension, these tour articles. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the article is poorly sourced, written from a fan's perspective, and contain original research with maps:

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for readers: This AfD discussion bundles two articles; the namesake and a Europe tour. A third article on a Southeast Asia tour was nominated for deletion by a different editor. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Draftify per WP:TOOSOON and close per WP:SNOW. The sourcing just isn't there and it needs to close fast per WP:NOTPROMO. Make it pass an WP:AFC review before being allowed back in main space.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think the same should be done with the Europe and Southeast Asia tours? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Internet, Australia, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete egregious over-coverage of a streamer. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KnowledgeIsPower9281, this AFD is not set up correctly as a bundled nomination. Please review the instructions at WP:AFD for nominating multiple articles and format your nomination statement accordingly. It's not just a matter of tagging an article, this AFD has to be correctly formatted or our editing tools, XFDcloser will not take action on other articles that you think are included here but really aren't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just moved the statement to the top of the AfD below my original nomination. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable outside of IShowSpeed GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability guidelines, largely a PR/fluff article with little informative content.Triplefour (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nowhere near meeting notability guidelines. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This has made national television news in New Zealand. There are several good sources about it. [2][3][4][5][6][7] However I'm not too opposed in the argument that it is not notable outside the article IShowSpeed. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think his tours should be mentioned in their own section in the IShowSpeed article. They don't seem notable enough to have their own article, and the current state of the article seems to have a lot of original research (i.e: maps and stream predictions) and/or usage of self-published sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:41, 29 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.

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Jones (architect)

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

An orphan article. An unremarkable career that does not meet WP:ARCHITECT. Source 1 is merely a registration database, sources 3 and 5 are primary. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing a notification of the creator, MurielMary, who might be able to explain why they believed notability requirements were met. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, LibStar, please post an AFD notification to User:MurielMary as you should have when you listed this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes criteria 4c of WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV per the source by Cox and Women in New Zealand Architecture: A Literature Review in Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand. This latter journal highlights that Jones was specifically featured in prominent exhibitions in New Zealand women architects and was featured prominently in the November-December 1993 issue of Architecture New Zealand magazine.4meter4 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets criteria 1 of the architect notability criteria: the person is regarded as an important figure, as evidenced by inclusion in Cox's work. MurielMary (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst Elizabeth Cox's source goes to GNG the source on it's own isn't enough to establish notability as the rest of the sources are non-independent or non-RS. There doesn't even seem to be mention of anything she's designed, which suggests she isn't notable too. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add: if there is sigcov of her work that'd go towards coverage of her and might sway my vote depending on how much and how in depth it is. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really difficult one because I can't find any information at all on her in a BEFORE search that isn't primary or even LinkedIn. The Auckland Library does have three items related to her architectural work. The literature review above only mentions her twice but says there was a topic box dedicated to her in a 1993 magazine, and the Cox book highlights many female architects. My overall sense is we haven't currently demonstrated she's notable enough for an article, and the article as currently written doesn't show she's clearly notable, but in the big grey void of deletion she's not completely non-notable either. Another source would go a long way here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 30 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.

Categories / Templates / etc

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Pekatahi (via WP:PROD on 5 February 2024)
Raes Junction (via WP:PROD on 4 February 2024)

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.

A list of prodded articles with {{WikiProject New Zealand}} tags can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts#Alerts.