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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to New Zealand.

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[edit]

Axel Downard-Wilke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Downard-Wilke does not meet our notability guidelines for people, with very little (if any) independent sourcing. See the first nomination which was speedy kept as it was linked from the main page's DYK section. It was promptly removed after the COIN case was brought up. To me this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. wound theology ◈ 08:16, 25 May 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 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Germany, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on encountering what I consider significant coverage in two profiles [1] (in this one he is rendered as "Wilke" rather than "Downard-Wilke") and [2]. This combined with the less significant but also more than trivial coverage across sources cited in the article leads me to consider the topic notable. I'm also perplexed by the OP's comment that this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. This article wasn't created or edited by its subject (who would be the "self" in self-promotion); the COIN case is about someone who knows Downard-Wilke interpersonally having contributed to the article. Downard-Wilke, who is disclosed to be Schwede66 on Wikipedia, has never edited this article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to go too deep into source debates for reasons stated in my comments below, but you might want to read my original nomination statement from the first AfD – certainly that first Stuff article you linked is not an independent source. It was written to promote this edit-a-thon to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stuff itself, which Downard-Wilke appears to have played some role in organising. This does call into question more broadly whether Stuff articles can be considered independent of Downard-Wilke.

The apparent less significant but also more than trivial coverage you refer to I believe amounts to a notability bomb when carefully investigated – although there are many sources, none turn out to contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-promotion but it is a prolific DYK contributor being asked to make an article about a prominent Wikipedian and get it on the front page. Obviously we don't know who did the asking. It all stinks, anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original AfD nominator here. I think this follow-up AfD is slightly premature. There is an evolving discussion underway at COIN, where Schwede66 has mentioned a cache of 50-odd potential sources for review. It would be better to take some time to properly go over these sources before going straight back to AfD. Plus, this way interested participants would not have to split their energy between content and conduct discussions, and so we can get all the facts right about the circumstances behind the article's creation (for example, I agree with Hydrangeans that calling it "self-promotion", given what we know right now, is tenuous because Schwede66 hasn't touched the article).

As it stands I would prefer this be suspended or closed procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination once other discussions have taken their course and Schwede66's sources been thoroughly reviewed. – Teratix ₵ 15:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Echoing the two previous comments. I feel this AFD is a bit rushed, and I don't see reasons why it may be labelled as self-promotion yet. X (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a prolific contributor surely has achieved enough notoriety to deserve an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk • contribs)

Anotopterus sp. (2008)[edit]

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

This isn't a real fish.

The article cites only one reference, and it's a dead URL. However, an archived version of it does exist on the Wayback Machine:

...And nowhere in the archived source does it say it's a new species. Nor are there any papers from around that time period on Google Scholar about the discovery of a new, as-of-yet-undescribed species of Anotopterus. In fact, the picture given in the article/source is identical to the one FishBase uses for Anotopterus vorax, which already has a page.

Please nuke this page from orbit. It's 16 years overdue.

— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 24 May 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 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An editor read the cited article and erroneously though it was an undescribed species, when it was a specimen of Anotopterus vorax. Nurg (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, see above comment. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I was led by an online news article (secondary source) to believe it was one of the species discovered by the team that wrote the PDF (primary source) linked here. This is a prime example of why secondary sources are less trustworthy than primary. I'm actually amused at my naive mistake here, since I would have written that stub a few years before I was introduced to actual scientific journal articles. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Sakaria[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Halliday[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of squad announcements etc, but not really enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keepa Mewett[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's this and a fair few other bits on his rugby career, and then a fair bit also on his post-rugby career. Worth a weak keep in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories / Templates / etc[edit]

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

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.