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

Rosehill College

(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. Schwede 66 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosehill Intermediate

(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

(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]

Flag of Otago

(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]

Fight Dem Back

AfDs for this article:

(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

(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]

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]

Northpark, New Zealand

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

Not an actual suburb and not notable at all. I am fine with a redirect and merging the demographics to a suitable article. I'm not that fussed on which article it is redirected to. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does appear to be an actual suburb. See listings such as [2] and mentions in [3]. This is the third Auckland suburb to be nominated by this user and it's beginning to become disruptive. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QV is a property listing company, they don't define suburbs and the fact you cannot spot an obvious real estate industry promotional piece is worrying. The second mention doesn't even state suburb. You haven't shown any notability here either. These are trivial mentions and cannot be used to develop an encyclopaedic article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure if it is a suburb. Auckland City is broken into Local Board areas - North Park falls within the Howick Local Board. This local board is subdivided into three sub-divisions (Howick, Pakuranga, and Botony). See this map of Howick. Northpark sits on the boundary of the Howick and Botony subdivisions. NealeWellington (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly listed as a suburb in newspapers and is a census designated place. We've already seen that local boards are not official suburb boundaries. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand doesn't have census designated places. Newspapers often get information from Wikipedia so WP:citogenesis needs to be considered, which is another reason not to have the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Census areas are called Census Area Units - maps of these can be found here Census Maps NealeWellington (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Census designated place is a US term. We have census tracts, which is what Stats NZ records. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn’t meet WP for notability since there isn’t enough independent coverage about it. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:32, 1 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!} 05:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~ It does exist as a suburb per LINZ: https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/113764-nz-suburbs-and-localities/ suburb ID 8768. ~~No opinion as to notability or otherwise~~. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included in that dataset are three hospitals, several lakes, and a reservoir. Their definition of suburb/locality seems quite broad. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the "type" field as well. The non-suburb or locality entries are classed differently e.g. Lake Waikare (ID 3969) is classed as "Lake" and the Firth of Thames (ID 8450) is classed as "Coastal Bay". Daveosaurus (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hospitals are listed as suburbs. The reason they are included is because this dataset is based on Fire and Emergency's locations database: 'NZ Suburbs and Localities is based on the NZ Localities dataset previously maintained by Fire and Emergency New Zealand', so these aren't legally recognised/defined areas. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which hospitals? And which lakes and reservoir did you refer to in your previous comment? (Note that the common names of some towns include the word "Lake"). And what do you mean about them not being "legally recognised/defined"? Historically, suburbs and localities had never been legally defined - this dataset is a project to rectify that omission. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Middlemore and Waikato.

>(Note that the common names of some towns include the word "Lake")

I'm aware, this was not the case.

>Historically, suburbs and localities had never been legally defined

There is an official gazetter and Auckland Council maintains a database on their geomaps service. These exist to catalogue localities and suburbs, not datasets used by firemen. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you consult the official gazetteer you will see that Auckland is not an official name. https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/15829 I look forward to seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auckland next April 1st. I could do with the amusement.

You have not specified which lakes (not being towns, suburbs or localities which include the word "Lake") you have found classified as suburbs or localities.

And this is not the FENZ dataset. It is a LINZ dataset adapted from the FENZ dataset for public use. Not "firemen".

Based on these erronous assumptions, plus others (Quotable Value is a State valuation company, not a "property listing company" I can no longer countenance deletion. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have WP:GNG so even if this non-sequitur made sense it wouldn't matter.

It's a FENZ dataset, that is where the data comes from. Northpark is not gazetted nor is it included by Auckland Council, so even if it is technically a legal place it quite clearly isn't very notable if no one has bothered to update either of those two sources to include it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the LINZ finding by Daveosaurus.-Gadfium (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village Green, Christchurch

(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. Schwede 66 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]

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.