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

1999–2000 New Zealand Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to New Zealand Figure Skating Championships. I will attach all subsequent competitions in this series shortly. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and New Zealand. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, New Zealand Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Not understanding why the nom could've just done this instead of having these articles stuck for a week in limbo outside of airing grievances about tropical nations having figure skating competitions despite not being in a position to medal in the worlds/Olympics. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Not going with soft as we have the creator as nominator here, and no other interest during the article's (admittedly) short tenure. Star Mississippi 02:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fleming Retirement Village

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

Not notable as the media coverage is only of the opening and does not show any lasting significance. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see any sigcov Traumnovelle (talk) 02:17, 24 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. Star Mississippi 02:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fujitsu Tower

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

Trivial coverage in two of the source (only mention Fujitsu Tower in one sentence). The source that is used the most is routine coverage of its sale. And that source is oneroof which isn't a particularly good source. I can not find any good sources online. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The building was originally called the Caltex Tower, so there may be more sources using that name, especially in regards to the design, construction and early history of the building. I'll try and look into this after Christmas when I have more time. Paora (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the main source provided is just an advertisement for the real estate listing. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:28, 24 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. Star Mississippi 02:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breakers (restaurant)

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

Not notable. All sources are for routine coverage (eg closure of individual restaurants) but are not about the business as a whole. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this clearly is not notable. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find SIGCOV, although the name doesn't help admittedly. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:22, 24 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 11:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Ross (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This from Stuff is clear sigcov. Further coverage from the Dominion Post and again in same indicate he's of at least regional notability. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above from Ser!, there is significant coverage in local media, and I have edited the article to include these references plus one other I found. Ewhite31 (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears SPORTBASIC is met.Canary757 (talk) 18:30, 28 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 Weet-Bix#Weet-Bix cards. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weet-Bix cards

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

Not one independent RS is in the article. Searching only turns up trivial mentions in RS without anything usable in an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I‘m not sure what is meant by RS but I have carefully assembled the albums and card lists from my own set. What is the reason for wanting to delete this page? A lot of NZ collectors use this. Tewheke (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RS means reliable source (WP:RS). You may want to read through WP:OR and WP:NOT. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Nothing wrong with having a collection of trading cards available for all to see but unless there are significant secondary sources accompanying the content, Wikipedia is not the venue for that. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is clearly not an appropriate subject for Wikipedia. This would be better hosted somewhere like a private blog. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge consider instead a merge or expansion with the main article Weet-Bix#Weet-Bix cards section once enough Reliable Sources has been filled in, since its a related to a historically notable product after all.Villkomoses (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify worthy subject but the article just isn't there now. Go back and work on it and see if you can get it to a point where it can justify its place here. Otherwise, sadly will have to go. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:04, 19 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!} 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weet-Bix#Weet-Bix cards - Since the subject is already covered on the parent article, a Redirect would be the preferred WP:ATD here. As the small bit of information included in this article outside of the list of cards is already included at the target, including the sources, no Merge is necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weet-Bix#Weet-Bix cards is a sensible AtD. Sources inadequate to pass GNG as except for the Howieson & Marsden source they are non-independent, database/catalogue and a blog. Rupples (talk) 18:22, 26 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.