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 Kripto (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 30 June 2007 (added Jay Coote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 redirect to Boyband (New Zealand band), no sourced information to merge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Coote

Jay Coote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable person in a band with dubious notability in and of itelf. Possibly written by subject, no sources Kripto 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band he is in is clearly notable (charted #1 hit in NZ), though that by itself does not establish his notability. Chubbles 01:08, 30 June 2007 (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arnold

AfDs for this article:
Robert Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable Kripto 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the group article. Band looks to be somewhat notable in New Zeland although not sure that the individual himself is notable enough for a proper article and the lack of sources does not help either. Also, to the nom can you add more reasons for your nomination, because it is another reason why I haven't said simple delete .--JForget 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okay, fair point. What I meant to say was: this person is not notable by virtue of doing anything except being in a band that may squeak through notability guidelines, and that band already has a page. Keeping this article makes it incumbent on the authors of this page to create more for the remaining members of the band. Kripto 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:37, 5 July 2007 (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. —Kurykh 00:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pollyfilla

Pollyfilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable, no sources Kripto 00:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what does 'drag fetish icon' even mean? Does this mean that the myor has a drag fetish? Does it matter if there's no article about drag fetishism in wikipedia? Kripto 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regional performer at best, not well known outside local area.Ryoung122 02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not well know out of local area. Oysterguitarist 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a person of local notability at best. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Redirect to Spackling paste (after "Polyfilla") Ohconfucius 07:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in New Zealand, which is all that counts to make this subject notable. Boy do I get tired of hearing the spurious argument of "not well known outside of local area." The fact that a figure is not well-known outside his/her locality does not disqualify them under notability guidelines: see WP:IDONTKNOWIT which reads Some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connect nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.. The real notability criteria for bios are at WP:BIO, and this article meets them. Article mainly needs expansion and better sourcing. --Ace of Swords 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've done some clean up of references (mainly to add complete bibliographic info) and added biographical information contained in one of those articles. Which material makes it even clearer that this person meets WP:BIO, in my mind. May the closing admin heed Wikipedia policy per this article, rather than simple votes based on lack of understanding of what notablity is ("if it's not notable outside NZ, it must not be notable"). Gee, I'm not a Kiwi myself, but that doesn't mean Kiwi topics aren't notable! --Ace of Swords 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New Zealand IS a big country and it's not as though she's only notable in Upper West North Central New Zealand. This is en wikipedia, which should encompass all aspects of English-speaking culture. As to the suggestion to redirect to spackling paste, you're joking, right?--Ispy1981 20:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources cited are sufficient to establish that article subject meets WP:BIO criterion of "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Groupthink 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pollyfilla is well known around the whole of New Zealand as one of the country's most prolific and popular drag entertainers and has been active in the LGBT community for most of the past decade. Enzedbrit 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article could use some copyediting for tone and style, in its current form it's suitably well-referenced to establish notability. There should be an italicized disambiguation link on the page for spackling paste or for the correct terminology of the item referenced here. Eliz81 17:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An italicized disambig link was put on this article several days ago; [see diff. --Ace of Swords 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, comment stricken. Eliz81 19:12, 13 July 2007 (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. ChrisO 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Most FM

The Most FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

deprodded by editor saying "Wikipedia does not prod any radio stations, campus or otherwise, that are properly licensed by the appropriate broadcast regulator." However, I contend that it is still not notable, as a student radio station. The article is unsourced. In any event, there appears to be no mention of any licenses granted. Stub since January 2006. Ohconfucius 10:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete student activity at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence it is a licensed broadcast station. Some countries allow unlicensed low powered FM stations, which are about as non-notable as things get. One of the references by JulesH says it gets out 5 km, which isn't very far, and another says they broadcast part-time until recent years, which also sounds like a hobby station, a vanity station, or a training operation for radio students at the school. Edison 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I live less than 1km from my local university campus, but I can't receive their radio station here. On the scale of things, 5km is quite a range for a university station. JulesH 14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But expand. Kripto 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per our practice on radio stations, our sole criterion for determining the notability of a radio station is "licensed by the appropriate broadcast regulator and originates at least a portion of its broadcast schedule in its own studios". We don't apply any additional criteria beyond that; if a radio station meets those two conditions, it's in. Keep. Bearcat 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to RadioStationWorld, the station broadcasts with 1 kW of power. In the U.S. this would enough to require an FCC license. Two college radio stations in the Los Angeles area, KCSN and KPCC, broadcast with less power (370 watts and 600 watts respectively), and they are definitely notable and can be heard throughout most of the Los Angeles area. For evidence that it is a licensed broadcast station in New Zealand, see here DHowell 21:20, 3 July 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/New_Zealand&oldid=141511073"