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

New Zealand College of Business

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

Cannot find any independent secondary coverage to satisfy NCORP. Current refs are not independent or are promotional. Article was created by an SPA. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Black Racing

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

Defunct and unsuccessful racing team that only competed for three seasons. The few citations are trivial & routine coverage of a sports team, failing NCORP. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Motorsport. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa

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

I have found next to nothing online that establishes notability for this organisation. The content could possible be merged to National Library of New Zealand as they seem to be the main drivers of the project. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, Internet, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Thackwell

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

Not independently notable - inherited from her husband and her brother Golikom (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and New Zealand. – The Grid (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Brabham#Family per nom. Not independently notable. Frank Anchor 03:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Margaret Keesing

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marie Margaret Keesing

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

Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Reasons given for notability are co-authoring books with husband. I understand it is difficult to know who is responsible for the written work in these circumstances, but I think co-authoring books that do not have their own article is a difficult justification for an article- I would suggest a merge with her Husband's article maybe (her husband is clearly notable as president of a learned body). I feel very bad about doing this, however, as obviously I do not want to underplay women's accomplishments in scientific fields. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's mentioned quite a bit in Gscholar [1] for example, but I suspect it was due to the era in which she lived and gender bias that "minimized" her contributions for lack of a better term. The 50s and 60s was still early for female scientists to be taken as equals to males. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This paper from 2015 seems to give her a proper discussion [2]. I think she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathise with the proposer's dilemma. Although in Wikipedia terms "president of a learned body" gives us an easy basis for declaring someone notable, the lasting impact of this couple, and the real reason they're notable, is the anthropology they did, and their written output, not the husband's post. We cannot tease apart who contributed how much. Given that we don't know their relative contributions, deciding to put her contribution in an article with his name just feels too old-fashioned and patriarchal, as well as very arbitrary. Also, from a practical perspective, if we were to merge, her life prior to her marriage wouldn't fit well in her husband's article, giving too much weight to things that aren't directly about him; we'd have to consider moving the new merged article to "Felix Maxwell Keeling and Marie Margaret Keeling" or something like that, but then we'd need redirects anyway, so what's the point? "Keep" has the benefit of being a simple outcome to an inseparable duo. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Social science, England, New Zealand, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the co-author of Elite Communication in Samoa and Taming Philippine Headhunters, both of which seem to be significant books (I'm seeing lots of published scholarly reviews online, despite the fact they were published a long time pre-internet), she surely meets WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should have followed your initial hunch: "I feel very bad about doing this". Back then, it was absolutely normal that a woman would publish together with her husband. Even if she was the major contributor, it would go out with the appearance that it was mainly the man's work. We should not be perpetuating this custom and either way, it's clear that they were both notable for their work in anthropology, even if it appears that he is the major author. Schwede 66 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Schwede66 and Josh Milburn and other arguments. Additionally the Pan-Pacific Women's Association was a redlink in the article due to a typo but is a significant organization. Major evidence comes from the article Oaktree found, "Applied Anthropology and Interwar Internationalism: Felix and Marie Keesing and the (White) Future of the ʻNativeʼ Pan-Pacific" -- when researchers are being the subject of others' academic articles, it's a very strong sign of WP:PROF passing. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge: weak delete because I agree with the points made above about women in science being overshadowed by men. However, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as much as I would like to. I think the alternative of an article merge would be good, but would require a rewrite of both articles to create a "joint" article for the couple. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air West Coast

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

Cannot find a single ref that goes towards notability. I originally BLAR'd it to the article of the group that ran it, as it is mentioned there with a brief description. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This airline was unique it was the first airline to operate the Dornier 228 in NZ. Plus they were the first airline to offer a scheduled service from Greymouth to Wellington. The history of would be lost if deleted as it's useful resource for research on former airlines of New Zealand. There is a long list of defunct airlines on the Template which will get destroyed if they are to be deleted one by one. A lot of work has been put in to create all of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Airlines_of_New_Zealand

That is why these should be retrained on Wikipedia. CHCBOY (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The history will not be lost if it is restored to a redirect, which I have no opposition to. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the redirect before and that's what it was only the article was gone completely. CHCBOY (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @CHCBOY, the mere fact that an airline was the first operator of <insert type of aircraft> or the first to serve <name of destination> is not adequate to establish notability if quality WP:SECONDARY sources do not exist. Carguychris (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: this airline seems like it should have some notability, but as it stands, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related databases and travel websites. Perhaps some better sources will emerge and I will change my mind. Carguychris (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was able to find sources verifying it exists, but nothing to establish notability. The most in-depth piece I see is one from a blog which wouldn't met WP:ORGCRIT. I have no opinion on merge or redirect but always happy with an WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find enough to establish notability online. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Tarawa

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

WP:BLP1E only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede 66 04:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.

This is the same for most of the refs, they're either promo pieces or interviews about Gloriavale. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of media coverage from reliable outlets here to establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.

Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.

Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.

Ref 6, women's day interview

Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.

Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time

Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.

Ref 11 is a promotional piece.

Ref 12 is a promotional interview

Ref 13 is an interview

Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book

Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier

Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces

Ref 18 is a promotional interview

Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.

Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death

Ref 21 is an interview

Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself

Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards

Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview

Refs 25-27 are interviews

Ref 28 is promotional

Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow

Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book

Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source

Ref 32 is about someone else's death

Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.

Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces

Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.

Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.

Ref 37 is a podcast interview.

Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to

Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it

So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alimetry Limited

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

I don't see Alimetry Limited passing WP:NCORP. Unfortunately, I think I have declined this twice at AFC, yet the page creator would do a little improvement and resubmit. Following this way, I think it's wayward and not good to keep declining (even from another reviewer), when the article doesn't meet the minimum consideration, hence more participation would be good at AFD.

Quite a long article, source one is purely unreliable and it references the company's non notable product. The second one thebit.nz is also unreliable, and even though NZRS was edited years ago, I don't see the source's editorial integrity of this likely WP:BLOG. Source 7 didn't tell us about the "Gastric Alimetry", instead, about the effects of gastric disorders, which didn't even mention the product.

New Zealand International Business Awards (sources to a blog from a reliable source), the Arobia Trailblazer Innovation Grant, and Medtronic APAC innovation Challenge aren't notable awards per WP:NAWARDS, and same is applicable to the NZ Hi-Tech Awards. There also appear to be an over-detailed contents in the sections, "Technology" and "Clinical Research". Regulatory approvals doesn't justify notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and New Zealand. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT. I was a bit shocked to see SS accept this, only to become satisfied with seeing the AfD as their intention was right. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References fail WP:ORGCRIT. For example, the most significant sourcing comes from this publication which seems to be a blog that sells advertisements and has no editorial oversight.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safari Scribe, I fully appreciate that organisations on Wikipedia should be treated with appropriate scrutiny when publishing articles. However, I feel that the appropriate due diligence on the references provided for this article has not been done.

To the points about the reliability of the first two sources, the first source comes from the website for New Zealand’s annual Tech Week, an industry initiative to foster engagement with technology around New Zealand. The article however, was first featured on ‘see tomorrow first’ a government-funded initiative (https://www.seetomorrowfirst.nz/domestic) (https://nztech.org.nz/2022/02/22/launch-of-nzs-tech-story-and-brand-platform-we-see-tomorrow-first/). I have updated this reference to include the see tomorrow first feature also. Thebit is a technology-focussed online newspaper that partners with Stuff.co.nz (featured on the NZRS). I have added a reference where this same article was published there as well.

Source 7 is only about the product. The Wikipedia article outlines ‘The Gastric Alimetry device employs patented body surface gastric mapping technology, utilizing a sensor array and connector to detect electrophysiological data from the stomach.’, and source 7 is a peer-reviewed paper that outlines the different components of Alimetry’s Gastric Alimetry product and its validation. Alimetry is stated several times in the article, and the visual abstract mentions both ‘Alimetry’ and ‘Gastric Alimetry.’

I believe WP:NAWARDS is not the appropriate article for establishing the notability and reliability of these awards, as this article outlines the requirements for a stand-alone article for an award. In this article, I am only citing these awards as evidence. While the Ārohia grant does not have its own Wikipedia page, Callaghan Innovation who awarded it does, and there is plenty of evidence online to showcase that it is a New Zealand government entity (https://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/about-us/). The NZ Hi-tech awards have been a showcase of the best tech companies in NZ since 1994 and have received independent new coverage each year around the awards (https://www.hitech.org.nz/more/about/). Although Wikipedia:Awards and accolades is in draft form, Alimetry Limited’s award references do meet this criteria.

Detailed feedback like this is appreciated to create a better article. I have also completed a notability assessment of all the sources and I hope this has addressed some of your concerns which will allow this article to stay published.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://techweek.co.nz/news/alimetry-decoding-the-gut/	This was published independently of Alimetry	TechWeek is supported by several industry and government bodies in New Zealand and is an annual national event	It is a profile on Alimetry the company and it's product Gastric Alimetry	✔ Yes
https://www.seetomorrowfirst.nz/international/news/alimetry-decoding-the-gut	This was published independently of Alimetry	See Tomorrow First is a New Zealand Government funded organisation	It is a profile on Alimetry and its product Gastric Alimetry	✔ Yes
https://thebit.nz/deep-dive/alimetry-the-auckland-startup-that-wants-to-digitise-your-gut/	There are no associations with Alimetry	~ The author is not stated	It is an in-depth profile on Alimetry	~ Partial
https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/thebit-nz/300361341/alimetry-the-auckland-startup-that-wants-to-digitise-your-gut	Stuff is an independent newspaper	Stuff in a national online news hub	It is an in-depth profile on Alimetry	✔ Yes
https://www.nzte.govt.nz/blog/meet-the-winners-of-the-new-zealand-international-business-awards-2023	NZTE is independent of Alimetry	NZTE is a government organisation	A profile on the company	✔ Yes
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/2022-hi-tech-awards-three-gongs-for-alimetry-mccrae-honoured/7YDWLXAQWTRAB6MI2RE5FBCA7M/	NZ Herald is an independent newspaper	NZ Herald is a national newspaper	A profile on Alimetry	✔ Yes
https://thebit.nz/deep-dive/alimetry-the-auckland-startup-that-wants-to-digitise-your-gut/	TheBit is an independent news source	~ Specific author unknown	A lengthy profile on Alimetry	~ Partial
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf21/K213924.pdf	the FDA is an independent source	The FDA is a government organisation	Alimetry's 510(k) approval letter	✔ Yes
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-listener/health/nz-researchers-make-major-tech-breakthrough-for-diagnosing-gut-problems/AII2GPGTPNG7BBAUNSEJIJOVQM/	NZ Herald is an independent newspaper	NZ Herald is a national newspaper	A profile on Alimetry	✔ Yes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10078595/	A peer-reviewed independent journal	A peer-reviewed journal article	the paper outlines the Gastric Alimetry product in detail	✔ Yes
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpgi.00049.2022	A peer-reviewed independent journal	A peer-reviewed journal article	the paper discusses the Gastric Alimetry technology in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042458/	A peer-reviewed independent journal	A peer-reviewed journal article	the paper discusses the Gastric Alimetry technology in detail	✔ Yes
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36534985/	A peer-reviewed independent journal	A peer-reviewed journal article	the paper discusses the Gastric Alimetry technology in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495352/	A peer-reviewed independent journal	A peer-reviewed journal article	the paper discusses the Gastric Alimetry technology in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/stories/first-arohia-innovation-trailblazer-grant-recipients/	Callaghan Innovation is a government organisation and is independent of Alimetry	Callaghan Innovation is a NZ government organisation	A profile on Alimetry winning the grant	✔ Yes
https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/anz/roundup-clinician-alimetry-win-medtronic-apac-innovation-challenge-nzhit-rebrands-digital	Healthcare IT news is independent of Alimetry	It is a global healthcare news source	Description of the award Alimetry won	✔ Yes
https://bestawards.co.nz/value-of-design-award/alimetry/gastric-alimetry-1/	The Best Awards are independent of Alimetry	The Best Awards are a national design awards event that began in the mid-70s in NZ	A profile on the award Alimetry won	✔ Yes
https://bestawards.co.nz/studios/alimetry/	The Best Awards are independent of Alimetry	The Best Awards are a national design awards event that began in the mid-70s in NZ	A profile on the award Alimetry won	✔ Yes
https://good-design.org/projects/gastric-alimetry/	The Good design awards are an independent award	The Good Design awards are an Australian award that began in 1958.	A profile on Alimetry	✔ Yes
https://www.movac.co.nz/fund-5/investment-notes-alimetry/	Movac is an investor in Alimetry but Alimetry had no input into the content of this article	Movac is NZ's oldest venture capital firm	A profile on their decision to invest in Alimetry	✔ Yes
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/the-next-fp-healthcare-alimetry-raises-16m-for-breakthrough-product/YN3MQPXHRNS2FGZJU2SABF2LSQ/	NZ Herald is an independent newspaper	NZ Herald is a national newspaper	A profile on Alimetry	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Odal46 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion: we have an entire NZ Herald article; an entire article in The Listener; a Stuff article (see below); plus the industry body awards mentioned above. Not that the criticism of "TheBit.NZ" website made above might be valid, but the article was republished by Stuff, which does maintain editorial oversight on that they publish. Therefore I think it inherits the credibility of that outlet (which is high). David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/request: @Odal46: Would you mind declaring any conflict of interest you have with either the company or any of its associated personnel? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:02, 4 October 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 redirect‎ to List of political parties in New Zealand#Parties that never held seats. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party

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

Political party that existed for less than a year and advocated for a single issue. Only limited coverage, and it all appears to be from 2008, except for a single article about "the stranger parties of NZ's past and present" from 2018. This seems similar to how political candidates may receive limited coverage during an elecetion but are not considered notable. The article creator has reverted an attempt to redirect this page to Whenuapai#Reverting to Military Aerodrome and recent developments. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – notwally (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Single-issue_politics#Oceania~~ List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Parties_that_never_held_seats: I couldn't find articles showing lasting impact other than an article that justifiably says their lasting impact is the absence of a commercial airport there Oblivy (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_political_parties_in_New_Zealand#Parties_that_never_held_seats - basically one guy who got fewer than 300 votes the one time he stood for election. it is an idiosyncrasy of NZ politics that anyone who can scrape up a deposit can say they are a party even if their unregistered "party" is basically a laptop and a printer. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties. I feel the inclusion anywhere else would be undue given how little there is about it. Whilst the Whenuapai air base has been a recurring topic in NZ politics, this party had no impact on it and there is an IP edit that suggests the founder of the party (and it's only member) doesn't want to be associated with it anymore. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveosaurus and Traumnovelle, I notice the section on that list specifically notes that it should be for notable parties. I would expect a non-notable party be ineligible for inclusion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that. Many of those parties listed are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. If there is no suitable place to redirect/mention it at then deletion would be best. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCAaWAP seems notable enough for a list of unsuccessful parties, particularly since they've been outrageously successful in preventing that airport being built! If consensus firms around the parties list, then I'll change my proposed redirect target. Oblivy (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is jocular about it. The party itself really had no impact. The commercial airport at Whenuapai has always been a terrible proposal unlikely to go through (estimated to cost around a billion just to move the military operations and other reasons relating to national defence that I can't mention on Wikipedia). Traumnovelle (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my attempt at jocularity. I'm happy to follow the consensus on redirect target, waiting to see if any other views emerge Oblivy (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is such a nothingburger I really don't think it even qualifies for merging. Maybe a merge to the single-issue politics page as per previous comment could make sense, but this is such a tiny thing I think it would be undue there. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single person single issue party. Was never registered to contest elections and only the founder contested a seat under that tikcet (without success). Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have three different Redirect/Merge target articles being suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even notable enough to go on a list of failed parties - given that it was never actually a registered party, just a name the one dude gave himself to look better on a ballot form. Absurdum4242 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter if it's a non-registered party? Sure, there's this which says that at the time it was an unregistered party name. But we have the NZ Herald saying it's a party[3] and this from the government registering the logo[4]. In my view, the name is verifiable and that should be the end of it. Notability is lacking which is why I support merge. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is when one of the other voting suggestions is “redirect to a list of parties” - there is an actual process to forming a political party in NZ, with steps and criteria to follow, none of which he managed to achieve. It’s like calling a lemonade stand your kids make a “company” because they drew a logo on the front - unless they legally incorporate, not a company. Don’t register as a party, not a party. Not a party, can’t be listed on a list of parties. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the information that this organization appears to be a single person who never registered it as a political party, if the organization is not notable, then I do not think the redirects to "Single-issue politics" or "List of political parties in New Zealand" would be appropriate. While the redirect I suggested to Whenuapai may be acceptable as there are a few mentions in newspapers, given the discussion since I filed this AfD, that is probably excessive as well. I now think simply deleting is the most appropriate. – notwally (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The electoral commission registered their logo and listed it on a report called "REGISTER OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND LOGOS". What you say may make intuitive sense to you, but disregarding secondary sources in favor of our own opinions is OR. Oblivy (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source says nothing about registration of the party. It says "The Commission approved an application to register a logo for No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party". If the party had registered, it would presumably say "The Commission registered the [party name] and its logo". Also, the NZ Herald does not call actually call it a party either (outside of the WP:HEADLINE); the article says that the person "says he will form the party". Do you know of any sources saying that he did so? – notwally (talk) 23:16, 1 October 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)

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.