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 of the debate was Redirect to "x in New Zealand", that is, 1965 in New Zealand, 1966 in New Zealand, 1967 in New Zealand, etc. Content has already been merged from 1965 to 1995. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge Author is in the process of creating 40 separate articles, one for each year, regarding the New_Zealand_Music_Awards. All are brief, some as little as 1 line long, and from what I can tell there is no way they'll ever get any longer. All should be deleted/merged with New_Zealand_Music_Awards. I'm gonna bundle a few of them into this to make the point, but I'm not gonna put all 40 up for deletion (they're not even all made yet) until we discuss this. Xyzzyplugh 00:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Tui_award_winners_1966 and Tui_award_winners_1967 --Xyzzyplugh 00:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say merge into Tui Awards, but that article doesn't even exist. So either create Tui Awards and merge all individual by-year articles into one, or else delete them all as non-assertions of notability. --Aaron 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Changing vote: Merge all individual year articles into New Zealand Music Awards per Xyzzyplugh. --Aaron 00:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Zealand Music Awards are apparently known as the Tui's, so the article is there for them to be merged into. --Xyzzyplugh 00:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Duh, I didn't notice that. I just created Tui Awards as a redirect to New Zealand Music Awards and have changed my vote above accordingly. --Aaron 00:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Xyzzyplugh. 40 separate articles is nonsensical. Camillus (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As it happens the name is a little misleading as well. The awards were originally the Loxene awards, then the RATA awards, then the RIANZ awards, then the Tuis. The later articles should be a lot longer than one line, but keeping them is notthe best solution nonetheless. Deleteion is not a good option, since these are New Zealand's premier music industry awards. There are two reasonable possibilities here: Three options: 1) Merge into one long article; 2) Rename to cover all of New Zealand's music awards, on a year-by-year basis. Adding in the APRA silver scrolls and NEBOA Music Entertainer of the Year awards would lengthen the articles considerably; 3) Rename them further still to "Music in New Zealand in 19xx", allowing far more information, with timeline, awards, top singles and albums etc. Ovrall, I'd prefer option 3. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is a music section in articles like 2005 in New Zealand, seems a logical place to add the year by year data. We can split music section out later if it gets big enough for each year. - SimonLyall 12:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 11:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Xyzzyplugh. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to 1965 in New Zealand music or similar as per Grutness' 3rd suggestion. This allows the article to expand. The later years in music will have more content, and the set of 2003 in New Zealand articles don't go back earlier than 2003, so including music in those articles is not such a good idea. The existing Year in New Zealand articles should of course reference the Year in New Zealand music articles.-gadfium 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 1965 in New Zealand etc, per Simon Lyall below.-gadfium 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep-As per Grutness' 3rd suggestion Brian | (Talk) 20:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So, 40 different articles on years in new zealand music. Why only go back to 1965, then? Why not stubs reaching back to the 1800's or 1700's? Should we then have hundreds of thousands of similar articles, so that every country has one for each year reaching back for centuries? Unless there is actual significant content to put in these xxxx in New Zealand music articles, I can't see the logic in having them. --Xyzzyplugh 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge- I am intending to create the "xxxx in New Zealand" (See Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board ) going back to 1900 in the next few days. Looking at Category:2002 in music the only country I can see is 2002 in British music and the British industry is 100 times the size of NZs. I would vote for merging these into the "xxxx in New Zealand" articles. - SimonLyall 00:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of xxxx in New Zealand music, or even The 1960s in New Zealand music if people hate short articles that much. Kappa 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge either into xxxx in New Zealand or one page (New Zealand Music Awards?) for the awards. xxxx in New Zealand music is excessive and not supported by the precedent of other countries. Ziggurat 23:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have now copied the content of the articles into the music section of 1965 in New Zealand through 1995 in New Zealand - SimonLyall 03:37, 4 March 2006 (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.