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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Best Regards (CP) 07:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Whiti, New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both WP:NPLACE (it isn't legally recognised) and WP:GNG

I cannot find any evidence in a reliable source that this is a real locality. The main source for this article is a UGC website (something akin to Geocities). The Gazetteer source does not mention 'Te Whiti' nor is a 'Te Whiti' gazetted in that source. The most I could find is a Te Whiti o Tu pa site [1] and some roads bearing the name. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searching "Te Whiti o Tu" shows there was a conflict there in 1823, and the 1901 Kahiti O Niu Tireni showed that someone elected to the Maori council was listed as being from there (from May the People Live: A Story of Maori Health Development.) The NZ government even says a settlement was established there. The battle is discussed significantly in the text here at archive.org. If we can show a school there closed it'd easily pass GEOLAND but it probably passes GNG as well. SportingFlyer T·C 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GEOLAND requires legal recognition, which this place (now aware there was some form of settlement bearing the name) does not have. The battle would be in reference to the pa that used to be there, which are not presumed notable. A school bearing the name has no bearing on the legal recognition of the area e.g. Bayfield School which is located in the unofficial neighbourhood of Bayfield (split between the legally recognised Herne Bay, New Zealand and Ponsonby, New Zealand).

  Gladstone, New Zealand is the legally recognised area that covers the area and it could be mentioned there as an WP:ATD. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's enough out there on the battle alone that it deserves to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. A school would simply show it was a populated place at one time. SportingFlyer T·C 01:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the battle meets GNG that is a separate matter. A redirect to an article on the battle would be an ATD but currently no such article exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's now been fairly comprehensive information on the school added to the article, though the masters did live a couple of miles away. Between that, the battle, and the NZ government documenting people living there, I do think we're at GNG for this particular place, even if GEOLAND is in question. SportingFlyer T·C 12:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't believe GNG is met. The Wises source isn't in depth and very basic. The Carolyn Robyn source is self-published. The biography of Sylvia contributes to GNG but I don't believe it meets GNG by itself given it is mostly about the person and not the area. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those aren't the only sources, though, and GNG isn't based on what's in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are other sources that contribute towards GNG please do provide them. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The NZ names database identifies it as a "homestead", which is something we would require to satisfy GNG anywhere else. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I find your argument so illogical that I suspect you meant to write something different from what you actually wrote. Nurg (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whether it is these days defined in some database as a "homestead" is irrelevant. It is, or used to be, quite a large area. While Masterton Borough existed, Te Whiti was one of the borough's ridings.^[1] That alone shows that it had relevance that establish GNG. Schwede66 04:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't refer to LINZ as simply a database, they take a lot more care than something like GNIS when it comes to recording places and even include some background history/etymology for many places. I don't believe we can make a connection between the settlement and the riding. Waitemata County had Karangahape, Manukau, Waikomiti, and Waipareira as subdivions and Piako County had Patetere riding, none of these derive their name from a settlement for example.

  I would like to hear from Nurg about what Discover New Zealand – A Wises Guide has to say on the subject (I couldn't find a digital copy). Traumnovelle (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Discover New Zealand – A Wises Guide entry says, in its entirety, "Farming locality on the east bank of the Ruamahanga River, Masterton District, 6km north of Gladstone, 12km south from Masterton." Nurg (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG. Paora (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What sources make this a GNG pass? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as to legal recognition of the place name: NZMS 261 sheet T26 shows Te Whiti North, Te Whiti South and Te Whiti West land registration districts in this area. https://geodatahub.library.auckland.ac.nz/public/maps/LINZ/NZMS/NZMS_261/jpg/NZMS261_T26_1977.jpg Daveosaurus (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 1 April 2025 (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.