Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand

Rosehill College (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)

Unable to find independent SIGCOV. There are news articles talking about the school but they are about incidents at the school rather than any deep coverage on the school. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Secondary schools in New Zealand are generally notable. There will have been in-depth coverage in the 1970s when the school was established, but those records aren't generally online. Schwede66 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at Paperspast and didn't find SIGCOV in the first 20 results. The closest thing would be an article on an arson at the school but it's just run of the mill news reporting and nothing that can be usable for an article about the school specifically. Also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Schools are no longer presumed notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Schwede66. The only newspaper covered by PapersPast for this era is The Press in Christchurch, and most likely The New Zealand Herald would have more coverage for an Auckland school. While most of the coverage in The Press is of routine sporting results, there was mention of the MBE awarded to the first principal and a defence against criticism by the second principal, which I've added to the article. I also added the 1998 arson because it follows an arson a few years earlier already mentioned in the article. The other interesting mention in The Press was Boy copies film lynching, but that could have happened at any school so I chose not to include it. I searched ProQuest for details of the earlier arson but couldn't find it, although there are many mentions of the college in it which might be useful to expand the article, and also Newspaperarchive.com. Both of these resources are available at WP:The Wikipedia Library.-Gadfium (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosehill Intermediate (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)

Cannot find any sigcov of school. Everything I can find is just a trivial passing mention. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of electoral firsts in New Zealand (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)

Fails WP:NLIST. Closest thing I can find is this: [1]. Ultimately this is WP:LISTCRUFT with no reliable source dictating which 'firsts' are notable and worthy of inclusion. All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re ‘’ List of electoral firsts in New Zealand ‘’ Wikipedia articles on individual MPs frequently refer to an individual MPs claim to fame eg being the longest serving MP (Rex Mason), and the parliamentary website itself has a list of “longest serving Members of Parliament” [[ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/mps-and-parliaments-1854-onwards/longest-serving-members-of-parliament/ ]]. There are similar lists for other countries eg List of electoral firsts in Canada and List of electoral firsts in the United Kingdom. Hence I do not see the need for an item by item justification of this or similar lists. Hugo999 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and what Wikipedia writes isn't relevant here. WP:NLIST is which states: 'Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you explain your logic with All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research.? I don't follow at all, and your point here seems to be adding 2 and 2 to get 7. Turnagra (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these entries involve original research, for example Iriaka Ratana's source here: [2] does not say she is the first. Instead someone has come to that conclusion via their own research. Stating that these MPs are notable for their 'firsts' is also typically original research, as without a source that states it it's an assumption that their 'first' made them notable rather than the fact that being an MP makes one notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having sourcing issues doesn't necessarily mean that it's original research, though. A cursory google search of that specific example found this within about 20 seconds. I also still fail to see how their inclusion of a first leads to the assumption you're stating at the end, or how that somehow diminishes the notability of the list. I think at the moment I'm leaning heavily towards keep. Turnagra (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't state she was the first MP to give birth. NLIST requires it to have been discussed as a group by a set of independent reliable sources and I do not see any group discussing it. I see no evidence of notability of a list of 'firsts'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, tag it with Template:Citation needed. MPs are discussed as a group and first things are notable to mention - not to mention there are dozens of other "lists of firsts". I'm tapping out of this one now, so no need to continue responding to try and push your point further. Turnagra (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Otago (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)

Can't find any sources that talk about this flag. The current sources are a passing mention related to the designer's opinion on something else, and flags of the world which is a deprectated source. couldn't find any books, news articles, even on the council website wasn't anything. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying im not saying this flag is inaccurate just saying its not notable enough to have its own article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very odd that it's not on the council website - it is the official flag and is flown outside their headquarters. Also not quite sure why FOTW is a deprecated source - it's still active and currently undergoing a major upgrade. I'll look for more sources. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:FOTW ->Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not understanding what the problem is. Otago is a region of the South Islands, and the region has a flag, and Wikipedians have written an article about that flag. Wikipedia's flag collection includes many articles on regional territorial flags. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the flag doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability to have its own article, there are literally no sources that I could find TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly, it looks like most if not all the sources are print only :/ They do exist, though. And while I hesitate to use OTHERSTUFF as an argument, I'd agree that if other regional authorities' official flags are notable enough for articles, it seems like a double-standard to have this one face deletion. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Dem Back (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Can only find trivial mentions of this website/group. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Slow (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 case of WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This article should not be deleted as it documents a historical event in New Zealand history. The failure of New Zealand security forces to protect an event with a head of state was national news and prompted discussions between New Zealand and the UK around security arrangements. Ashok.fernandez (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's about an event then the article should be renamed. However, I don't think it meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that this person isn't notable enough for a biographical article. As for the incident itself, I can only find 2 articles about it, which depict it as a failed gatecrashing attempt with minor repercussions. It seems there are few viable sources to support the claim it was a historical event, or really much of anything at all. Melonbob (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ashok.fernandez, I gather you are also User:Ashok fernandez who created this article 14 years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the person is WP:BLP1E. If the event is notable then the article needs to be refocused. Celjski Grad (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village Green, Christchurch (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)

No longer notable after the earthquakes. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Queen Elizabeth II Park as AtD. Notability should not be lost once found, but I can't find enough WP:SIGCOV for the Village Green in the first place. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I wanted to point out the same. Something or someone cannot lose their notability. Schwede66 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Sammyrice:. A NZ cricket topic up for deletion. Are you able to find anything to expand this? AA (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't canvass people to vote. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Traumnovelle:. Where exactly am I canvassing someone to vote? I've tagged an editor with an interest in NZ cricket to see if they can expand the article. Are you mad? AA (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging someone you expect to vote keep is canvassing. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Traumnovelle: So you are calling into question the integrity of two long-standing editors? Nowhere am I encouraging him to vote, nor expecting him to. It's his subject area. Or shall we not expand articles? I suggest you take back your bad faith accusation. AA (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Drop it. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – ground is widely covered by The Press with enough coverage elsewhere to meet WP:SIGCOV, the "No longer notable after the earthquakes" is an odd argument. --JP (Talk) 13:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jpeeling I agree with you that the "no longer notable after the earthquakes" argument is wrong, provided there was notability to begin with, But to the extent the Press articles offer WP:SIGCOV of any facility, they seem to highlight Queen Elizabeth II Park, not the Village Green venue in particular. Do you have sources that show specific coverage of the Village Green versus the broader complex it was part of? Open to switching my !vote but I need to see some SIGCOV of the specific venue rather than the complex it was part of. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking through the sources the majority focus on the cricket venue rather than the wider park in general. They do mostly mention the QE2 but I think that's more to define where they are talking about given the generic name of the venue. JP (Talk) 07:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It was a major ground for 12 years, staging five domestic one-day finals. Sammyrice (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is appropriate to Queen Elizabeth II Park. I read the The Press sources and none are SIGCOV of Village Green but rather of the park or other buildings within the park. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per recent expansion. AA (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect into the main QEII article.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 (duplicate of 2) are databases, 4, 6, 9 are passing mentions, 5, 14 don't even talk about the village green, but I think 8, 10, 13 are enough to push to WP:GNG (numbering per Special:PermaLink/1236485715) (struck first !vote). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, opinion is divided between Keep and Merge. Could the expansion of the article be evaluated to see if it changes any opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion hasn't changed. The sources are either trivial or give greater focus to QEII park or other buildings in the park. I don't see any evidence that the cricket ground has enough coverage for a stand alone article and QEII article isn't so big as to justify a content split. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Queen Elizabeth II Park. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. This is a poor rationale for deletion. A venue being presently-demolished or mothballed does not erase the notability of its former use. Never has the closure of a sports venue been reason to delete an article. If it genuinely met notability standards while operating, it is hard to see how its closure would change that. SecretName101 (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.