 | Points of interest related to
New Zealand on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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:| watch |
- Village Green, Christchurch ( | 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)
- 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)
- Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yes, I wanted to point out the same. Something or someone cannot lose their notability. Schwede 66 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Please don't canvass people to vote. Traumnovelle ( talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
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)
- Keep. It was a major ground for 12 years, staging five domestic one-day finals. Sammyrice ( talk) 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep. Per recent expansion. AA ( talk) 08:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Imre Vallyon ( | 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)
I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.
In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial ( talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and New Zealand. Ynsfial ( talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep has enough to meet
WP:GNG.
NealeWellington (
talk)
10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate how it has enough to meet WP:GNG? Ynsfial ( talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment for
Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the
deletion review process if you consider there is an issue.
NealeWellington (
talk)
10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Thank you. Ynsfial ( talk) 18:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- ’’’Keep’’’ He’s a convicted pedophile. Where’s the good in deleting this? Meets
WP:GNG. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A01:E0A:E9F:8340:51A7:F4CD:CE5C:4B8B (
talk)
18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate how it has enough to meet WP:GNG? Ynsfial ( talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as thin as it is, the media coverage in New Zealand and the Netherlands establishes WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 01:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Looks like an attempt to delete the history to me. It happened before that talented people did crimes (Roman Polansky etc.) and encyclopedia must show the good and the bad. There had been "no consensus" discussion before and my position here is that the person is a notable author and notable criminal and convicted felon at the same time. Also, I see it as a strange attempt from another editor and I have COI concerns here. If the page stays, I suggest to monitor it carefully for any future attempts to delete the historical record.-- Saul McGill ( talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. I don't think the Dutch NOS article mentioned above provides significant enough coverage. I'd say awards won aren't enough for notability, but this might be worth looking into further. @ Saul McGill:, I don't see how he fulfills WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:AUTHOR. He fails all the criteria for both. Mooonswimmer 01:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The key points to ponder include:
1. Is Vallyon notable as an author? Only a few reliable sources have covered Vallyon’s works. Thus, he is not notable under WP:GNG.
2. Is Vallyon a notable criminal? Vallyon also fails WP:PERPETRATOR. A criminal is only notable if the media in many countries have covered their crimes or if the crimes were historic or major. There has been coverage of his legal issues, but it may not be enough to meet these standards.
3. Is there reliable coverage? To strengthen the argument, we rely on you, the editors and contributors, to provide sources that can offer an in-depth study of Vallyon’s life and work or his crimes.
4. Is there community consensus? The ongoing debate and non-consensus closure of previous discussions highlight the urgency of a closer review of the sources and arguments, mainly regarding their differing viewpoints. Everyone's input is crucial in this process.
In short, the coverage does not explore his works or crimes. If the consensus favors retention due to his criminal history, the article must meet WP:BLP. It is our collective duty to ensure that it remains neutral and relies on proper sources.-- AstridMitch ( talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
AstridMitch, I struggled to follow your logic, to be honest. For example, per WP:PERPETRATOR, his crimes were covered in New Zealand and Germany, which constitutes international media coverage. Additionally, he has followers and organized groups in many countries, indicating an impact that clearly extends beyond one region or even country. Moreover, the "no consensus" closure doesn't highlight any urgency as you incorrectly claimed. This is simply not true and there is no urgency here unless it may be urgent for you. Regarding the reliable coverage argument, I didn't understand your point. Overall, your comment resembles an emotional appeal to editors' collective consciousness (also beyond my logic in terms of Wikipedia's rules) rather than providing clear arguments.-- 50.46.167.81 ( talk) 07:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep
In addition to being a prolific and frequently published writer who meets WP:GNG, he is notable as a spiritual influencer or "cult leader" (arguably) with large groups of followers in several countries. He wouldn't have been covered by major media outlets in New Zealand and Europe if he were just a child molester. The point is that he was active as a philosopher and "school leader" who organized large international groups of followers, which then caught media attention. They described him as an influencer, a child molester, and a convicted felon. Therefore, I suggest adding "spiritual influencer" or "Spiritual teacher" to the definition, as supported by sources on his page. 50.46.167.81 ( talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thelma Rodgers ( | 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:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge.
This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in
this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in
Scott Base.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles ( talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. Pam D 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (
Newshub and
The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about.
Nnev66 (
talk)
18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources.
LibStar (
talk)
23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why
WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction.
Nnev66 (
talk)
01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar ( talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why
WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction.
Nnev66 (
talk)
01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 ( talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources.
LibStar (
talk)
23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting
WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough.
Chocmilk03 (
talk)
08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 ( talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many
thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article.
Reywas92
Talk
13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. Pam D 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of
WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on
this article. It's a bit of case of
WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less).
KoA (
talk)
17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA ( talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep or maybe Merge: it's a borderline case, but I think there's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the content, if not to have a standalone article. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
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.
| Points of interest related to
New Zealand on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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:| watch |
- Village Green, Christchurch ( | 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)
- 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)
- Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Yes, I wanted to point out the same. Something or someone cannot lose their notability. Schwede 66 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Please don't canvass people to vote. Traumnovelle ( talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
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)
- Keep. It was a major ground for 12 years, staging five domestic one-day finals. Sammyrice ( talk) 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep. Per recent expansion. AA ( talk) 08:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Imre Vallyon ( | 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)
I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.
In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial ( talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and New Zealand. Ynsfial ( talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep has enough to meet
WP:GNG.
NealeWellington (
talk)
10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate how it has enough to meet WP:GNG? Ynsfial ( talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment for
Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the
deletion review process if you consider there is an issue.
NealeWellington (
talk)
10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Thank you. Ynsfial ( talk) 18:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- ’’’Keep’’’ He’s a convicted pedophile. Where’s the good in deleting this? Meets
WP:GNG. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A01:E0A:E9F:8340:51A7:F4CD:CE5C:4B8B (
talk)
18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you demonstrate how it has enough to meet WP:GNG? Ynsfial ( talk) 15:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as thin as it is, the media coverage in New Zealand and the Netherlands establishes WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 01:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Looks like an attempt to delete the history to me. It happened before that talented people did crimes (Roman Polansky etc.) and encyclopedia must show the good and the bad. There had been "no consensus" discussion before and my position here is that the person is a notable author and notable criminal and convicted felon at the same time. Also, I see it as a strange attempt from another editor and I have COI concerns here. If the page stays, I suggest to monitor it carefully for any future attempts to delete the historical record.-- Saul McGill ( talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. I don't think the Dutch NOS article mentioned above provides significant enough coverage. I'd say awards won aren't enough for notability, but this might be worth looking into further. @ Saul McGill:, I don't see how he fulfills WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:AUTHOR. He fails all the criteria for both. Mooonswimmer 01:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The key points to ponder include:
1. Is Vallyon notable as an author? Only a few reliable sources have covered Vallyon’s works. Thus, he is not notable under WP:GNG.
2. Is Vallyon a notable criminal? Vallyon also fails WP:PERPETRATOR. A criminal is only notable if the media in many countries have covered their crimes or if the crimes were historic or major. There has been coverage of his legal issues, but it may not be enough to meet these standards.
3. Is there reliable coverage? To strengthen the argument, we rely on you, the editors and contributors, to provide sources that can offer an in-depth study of Vallyon’s life and work or his crimes.
4. Is there community consensus? The ongoing debate and non-consensus closure of previous discussions highlight the urgency of a closer review of the sources and arguments, mainly regarding their differing viewpoints. Everyone's input is crucial in this process.
In short, the coverage does not explore his works or crimes. If the consensus favors retention due to his criminal history, the article must meet WP:BLP. It is our collective duty to ensure that it remains neutral and relies on proper sources.-- AstridMitch ( talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
AstridMitch, I struggled to follow your logic, to be honest. For example, per WP:PERPETRATOR, his crimes were covered in New Zealand and Germany, which constitutes international media coverage. Additionally, he has followers and organized groups in many countries, indicating an impact that clearly extends beyond one region or even country. Moreover, the "no consensus" closure doesn't highlight any urgency as you incorrectly claimed. This is simply not true and there is no urgency here unless it may be urgent for you. Regarding the reliable coverage argument, I didn't understand your point. Overall, your comment resembles an emotional appeal to editors' collective consciousness (also beyond my logic in terms of Wikipedia's rules) rather than providing clear arguments.-- 50.46.167.81 ( talk) 07:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep
In addition to being a prolific and frequently published writer who meets WP:GNG, he is notable as a spiritual influencer or "cult leader" (arguably) with large groups of followers in several countries. He wouldn't have been covered by major media outlets in New Zealand and Europe if he were just a child molester. The point is that he was active as a philosopher and "school leader" who organized large international groups of followers, which then caught media attention. They described him as an influencer, a child molester, and a convicted felon. Therefore, I suggest adding "spiritual influencer" or "Spiritual teacher" to the definition, as supported by sources on his page. 50.46.167.81 ( talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thelma Rodgers ( | 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:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge.
This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in
this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in
Scott Base.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles ( talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. Pam D 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (
Newshub and
The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about.
Nnev66 (
talk)
18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources.
LibStar (
talk)
23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why
WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction.
Nnev66 (
talk)
01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar ( talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why
WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction.
Nnev66 (
talk)
01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 ( talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources.
LibStar (
talk)
23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting
WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough.
Chocmilk03 (
talk)
08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 ( talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many
thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article.
Reywas92
Talk
13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. Pam D 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of
WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on
this article. It's a bit of case of
WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less).
KoA (
talk)
17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA ( talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer// cloventt ( talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep or maybe Merge: it's a borderline case, but I think there's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the content, if not to have a standalone article. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
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.