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 delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pendragon Press

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

List of unnotable book publishing companies. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, England, Wales, New Zealand, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree this isn't a notable publisher and this article has no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 14:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially a combination of a disambiguation page and five stubs. No content supported by third party sources. Adabow (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 9 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 redirect‎ to Lake2Lake Trail. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiordland Trails Trust

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

WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. There are multiple articles published in The Southland Times that describe the activities of the Fiordland Trails Trust over the past decade. I have listed a group of citations from The Southland Times on the article talk page Talk:Fiordland Trails Trust. I think the article warrants expansion rather than deletion._Marshelec (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had second thoughts _Marshelec (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Marshelec lists some additional sources, but I don't think repeated mentions in the same regional paper constitute significant coverage. The only other mention I can find is here [1]https://www.odt.co.nz/southland/bit-more-help-needed-popular-fiordland-trail , and that's not really significant coverage either, and might be a re-publication of one of the Southland Times articles; I just don't think there's enough there for a whole article. I think the current content could be turned into a couple of extra sentences on the Manapouri and/or Te Anau articles at best. JeffUK 11:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Replace with alternative article The content in the existing article is unsourced and I cannot find adequate sources to back it up. On reflection I have realised that it would be more useful for readers of the encyclopedia to have an article about the trails than the organisation that has planned and created them. So I have created a new article. See: Lake2Lake Trail There is more work to do, but this is a start._Marshelec (talk)
Redirect to Lake2Lake Trail. Well done, Marshelec. Nurg (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the new article. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:10, 18 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D-Photo

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

Fails WP:GNG, can't find any significant reliable secondary independent sources. Seems to just be one guys magazine that according to a reddit post he doesn't do anymore TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed. Fails WP:GNG

Aknip (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has no appropriate sources. A WP:BEFORE Web search doesn't find any reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG or WP:CORP. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:32, 5 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 no consensus‎. There is no consensus as to the pertinence of the proposed sources. Sandstein 15:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Moleta

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this article because Moleta redirects here and I wanted to determine whether it should be a disambiguation or if Moleta (kgosi) should be the main subject. Searching suggests this is a run-of-the-mill musician. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Australia, and New Zealand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there are four sources fully cited in this article talking about her. They appear to be reliable, secondary, and independent sources; the two I've managed to access myself provide significant coverage and I assume the others do as well, particularly the news article in The West Australian with her name in it. That's three GNG-qualifying sources right there. Quoting, GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- just because the sources in the article were not linked does not mean they do not exist. Whether a person seems "run-of-the-mill" is irrelevant as long as they pass GNG; and if you read the news articles which were cited in the article at the time of the nomination she does have a somewhat interesting style.

I would make this a strong keep if I could track down the URL for the West Australian article, but I can't currently. Probably searches are failing because the news source does not keep archives from 2001. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly I think it will likely need to be a disambiguation page -- the kgosi while arguably more historically significant is likely much more obscure. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ref 2 is significant (partially interview based but with more than sufficient additional coverage); ref 4 is the same author in the same source a couple of months later with a cut down para about a live appearance, so I don't give that particular weight. There's basically a paragraph of review included at De Morgen[2] (the article covers releases from multiple bands/muso )- it looks like this is the same as ref 3 since it's the only mention of her in the archives. Ref 2 (GTranslated) suggests that she has had more success in France than elsewhere, however she has hardly any appearances on French sites currently. The West Australian smells like an interview and/or a festival appearance (Kulcha was WA's multicultural arts body), but would need someone with access to the archive to check. I can't see any other reviews around for her albums including via sampling archive snapshots of her website. In the absence of additional reviews -- particularly for her other work -- I think that a case can be made that her album Dive weakly meets WP:NALBUM (the Liberation and De Morgen articles, plus two of its songs were in the soundtrack for Pretty Things (2001 film)), that her albums other than Dive are clearly non-notable, and that she does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added content, references and believe the subject is notable via WP:MUSICBIO.Didier Landner (talk) 22:54, 17 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.

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.