Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Zealand Week


 * 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   Delete
 * I was considering userfying this, as a couple of editors suggested, but as the account to which this would be userfied appears to have a Conflict of Interest, I believe that deletion without userfying would be the most prudent course of action. However, should the site meet the notability criteria for inclusion in the future, there is no reason why it cannot be created at that time. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The New Zealand Week

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced and promotional article about a non-notable website. Alexa rank is 2.7 million. Prod was removed without any concerns being addressed. gadfium 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure how this works. Can you guide me. I began loading this entry for The New Zealand week and when I returned to edit further there is this mark for deletion. This a genuine news site and a genuine wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryboy123 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete / userfy for not meeting WP:N / WP:WEB. See no results for this website from the NZ Herald, stuff.co.nz, TVNZ, TV3. Don't see the site at the Qantas Media Awards 2009 results. XLerate (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are a real friendly group aren't you. Ok, let's try again. We are a new news site and why would competitor sites be interested in promoting a new minor site, therefore whay would the Herald, stuff.co.nz, TVNZ andTV3 give us any attention, nice if they would. And no this isn't in the 2009 Quantas awards. (a) because the site didn't exist before the last round and (b) because we're not spending the thousands of dollars it costs to enter the awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryboy123 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Being a competitor to mainstream news organisations could make notability a little harder on one hand, but then if for example the NZ Herald publishes a story from the site then perhaps WP:WEB #3 is met. I did check the competitor issue, the Dominion Post has over 1000 hits at the New Zealand Herald, though it is large and not new. Reliable sources aren't limited to mainstream news, Te Ara, DNZB for example. I suggested Userfy because the site is fairly new, maybe it meets a notability criteria in the future, and the article could easily be recreated. XLerate (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete / userfy as above. Single issue user, possible COI. (Talk Contribs) 10:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As above. What's a COI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryboy123 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:COI, conflict of interest. XLerate (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify nature of site, which may serve to answer some of the questions raised. The New Zealand Week (TNZW) is a news review site. This being the case it doesn't generate news stories which makes it highly unlikely another news source would have need to quote or reference TNZW. Further TNZW is unique nature - it is the only, and therefore first, news review site in Australasia. This combined with the small size of the New Zealand market does mean, I would argue, that it meets the notability criteria. Here are a couple of other smaller news sites that have referred to TNZW: [In view of criticisms re not being cited by leading news source websites. Here are links to two smaller outlets that have refferred to The New Zealand Week. Home paddock rural news —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryboy123 (talk • --Larryboy123 (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)contribs) 03:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While it may meet your personal notability criteria, notability on Wikipedia is established by the fact that other people write about a subject if it is notable. And not just anyone - Reliable sources - which the blog you have linked to is not. The site might become notable in the future, but that will take time to establish. Oh, Delete. dramatic (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2010 (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.