Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 1 December 2024 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


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:
Taking the piss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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]
  • 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. Schwede66 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]
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

Cantamath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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)

Annette Jones (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

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]

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)

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/New_Zealand&oldid=1260608490"