Talk:Stadium New Zealand

Value of article
Oh god not here too. Will everyone shut up about this thing?

An excellent point! Perhaps one that deserves mention in the article - this is a controversial topic enjoying a great deal of airtime in NZ at the moment. Some might also argue it is an unnecessary debate as only the government appears to be behind the initial Waterfront proposal.
 * Who said? Most surveys etc show quite a lot of people support the waterfront proposal. Not a majority perhaps but it's definitely not 'only the government' Nil Einne 08:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And certainly not topic unworthy of Wikipedia. Even if it never gets built. MadMaxDog 11:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You may not like the fuss about this proposed stadium. However the fact that there has been such a fuss and you're telling everyone to shutup suggests we do need an article. Nil Einne 12:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Overhaul of Page Top marks to the person who has taken the page from being a stub. Really good to see the overhaul.

tag edit
I have removed the deletion tag applied to this article at |00:03 27 November 2006 by User:203.109.177 No reason was given for the proposal to delete. See discussion above RE: importance of article. Goldfinger820 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, time to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.145.13 (talk • contribs)
 * Why? It's an informative article on a matter of considerable debate in New Zealand in November 2006. That debate isn't over yet (although this proposal is pretty close to being dead), but even when it is over, the article still has value for poeple considering the history of the matter or looking at similar stadium proposals. You may have been sick of the debate from the beginning (I see that the first comment on this talk page was from the same IP address), but there are over 1.5 million other articles on Wikipedia for you to read instead.- gadfium 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * well said Goldfinger820 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And some people at my work (we are involved on the periphery of the planning) noted that government may just be raising the costing problems on Eden Park now to nudge them back... okay, that IS my wishful thinking ;-) But anyway, just because a matter is 'settled', is no reason to delete it. We don't delete articles on athletes who lost their last big game, either. MadMaxDog 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to even discuss this really, you can't just delete articles because you don't like them. It is a notable subject, thus it is on Wiki. Narrasawa 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to delete this because I was sick of hearing about it, I just thought it would now be obsolete. But this is an encyclopedia, not a news site, so I agree. It should stay. Imagine what dreams and schemes would feature on this site if the technology were around forty years ago...


 * Uuuuh, they ARE on here? Just look at articles like this one... MadMaxDog 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah there's a heap of stuff. But what's been lost? Also, I think the sheer amount of media coverage the stadium issue received should be included in this article. Ther Herald polls and endless talkback and so on. That's perhaps the lasting impact of the idea; the media frenzy in those two weeks of speculation.

Future?
Is the issue totally over now? Is there still a hope for the waterfront stadium at all? Narrasawa 04:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing bureaucratic inertia, and the risks any politician runs if he brings it up again: no. The issue is dead, and all the talk about waterfront access won't help - there will be containers there for 15 years+. MadMaxDog 05:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)