Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GayNZ.com (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GayNZ.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails our website notability guideline as well as our basic notability policy. The two sources given are (1.) a directory of LGBT websites and (2.) a passing mention in the NZ Herald. No independent non-trivial coverage. Naerii 10:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This does seem to be the leading LGBT newsite in New Zealand and there articles seem to be picked up by others and they have been quoted by other sources as well. The article as is needs a lot of improving but AfD is not clean-up. If an article can be improved through regular editing it's not a good candidate for AfD. Banje boi  13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that the article needs cleaning up and/or that the need for a cleanup was a reason to delete? *blink* And as for the other aspect, being cited by other websites is all very well, but how are we supposed to write an article about them if there isn't any non-trivial third party coverage? See WP:N. Naerii 15:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think you did state that but that does seem to be the problem, the article needs a lot of improving, general editing, including adding sources. As for non-trivial references, these may help, Television New Zealand, Scoop.co.nz, New Zealand Herald, NZ Edge. Banje boi  00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Telivision New Zealand seems to be pretty trivial, it's a profile of a journalist that has one sentence where it says he writes for gaynz.com. Not sure if scoop is that good a source, but I guess it's non-trivial. NZ Herald is the passing mention I mentioned in my nomination. And how is NZEdge non-trivial? The only mention is "The article quotes GayNZ.com writer, Craig Young:". Naerii 11:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no independent coverage. The little coverage that there is trivial, and only says that the site exists. fails WP:WEB --T-rex 19:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied above that may address this concern. If I feel I have time to add these I will. Banje boi  00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, because it's the leading GLBT website in New Zealand, and was in the same position the previous year too. That makes it notable.- gadfium 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability appears to be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet notabiliy criteria, as there are numerous articles about it and verifiable contraversies surrounding it such as the one covered in this article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per gadfium. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - in addition to sources found so far, GayNZ has been the subject of a controversy over the reporting of a politician's son's comments on a social networking site (I've just added a section to the page on this). --Zeborah (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.