- 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NZ On Screen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to NZ On Screen. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases, self links and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion is WP:NOT the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the website seems to fail the criteria for website notability. Bfigura (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep based on add'l sourcing. --Bfigura (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, government-funded website providing valuable and legal clips and other material on the New Zealand film and television industry. The discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#User:Filmtvfan is related to this nomination.-gadfium 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. Recieving taxpayer money does not seem to be a criteria for satisfying notability of WP:WEB. --Hu12 (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:N with in-depth independent coverage - stuff.co.nz, TVNZ. It also won the 2009 Qantas Media Award for best Entertainment Website[1]. The article meets criteria 1 & 2 of WP:WEB, which says keep the article if any are met. XLerate (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteweak keep The article definitly was created as a conflict of interest, and the notability is slight. Stuff.co.nz appears to be a blog site, and the Qantas Media Award doesn't seem very notable in itself, so the site doesn't seem to be covered too extensively or in any detail. ThemFromSpace 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're mistaken - stuff.co.nz is a mainstream news portal, for Fairfax newspapers including The Press and The Dominion Post, second and third nationally in terms of circulation[2]. XLerate (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I guess that counts as enough coverage for the article to assert notability. The article still needs to be reviewed for COI concerns but I don't see a pressing reason to delete it now. The creator should keep in mind that this article isn't a licence to link to the site in other articles, as Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-promotion. ThemFromSpace 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that the site itself is a Reliable source for many articles on New Zealand film and television, so I do expect it to appear in numerous references. dramatic (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I guess that counts as enough coverage for the article to assert notability. The article still needs to be reviewed for COI concerns but I don't see a pressing reason to delete it now. The creator should keep in mind that this article isn't a licence to link to the site in other articles, as Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-promotion. ThemFromSpace 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a Pointy nomination. This is a notable New Zealand Government agency. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:N. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. About as important to NZ as would be if Youtube and IMDB were rolled into one! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.