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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waipareira (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)

Non-notable electorate that only briefly existed for 3 years. No independent secondary coverage appears to exist. Can be mentioned elsewhere like the Te Atatu electorate. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose You are joking, aren't you? How can an electorate not be notable? Electorates are unique (hence, a merger is inappropriate); they form the basis for electorate seats. There is no way that you'd see an electorate deleted and I encourage you to withdraw this nomination. Schwede66 05:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no subject specific notability for electorates. I did not see any reliable SIGCOV at first although I have found one source now: [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this electorate is significant within the New Zealand context for having only lasted one election.NealeWellington (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing significant about it lasting only a single election. It was not the first electorate to exist for a single election and no reliable source mentions it being notable/significant for that. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep electorates are generally clearly notable for many different reasons. Not seeing an argument against here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument is a lack of independent reliable sources providing significant coverage, therefore no GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The significant sources would have been in 1995 and 1996, and as we all know, that is a period for which there are scant online sources available. PapersPast stops at 1989, and The New Zealand Herald has an online archive going back to about 2000. There's hardly anything in between. That the sources aren't online does not mean that they do not exist. Schwede66 21:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Auckland Library has sources which have blurbs/briefs catalogued in the National Library website. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per NealeWellington. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a corollary of WP:NPOL, electorates are presumably notable, even one in existence for a single election, although that's not necessarily the case here. Historically, Waipareira was a riding created in 1911 in the former Waitematā County Council. In the 1997 edited text "From Campaign to Coalition: New Zealand's First General Election Under Proportional Representation" ISBN 9780864693143 there's an entire chapter (Marcus Ganley's "Waipareira: A Four-Way Fight") devoted to the campaign for the seat at the 1997 election. WP:NEXIST Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The riding isn't related to the electorate bar the name. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Um... other than covering the same geographic area (West Auckland), sure. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I still can't quite fathom why a parliamentary electorate would be nominated for deletion. Obviously it is notable and should be retained. Kiwichris (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All parliamentary electorates are notable, even if they have only been used for one term. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electorates are not presumed notable. There is no policy or guideline that states that. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, as mentioned above, it's a corollary of WP:NPOL (we make elected politicans presumably notable, by implication their offices and electorates will be) and, second, there is consistent community consensus that electorates are notable, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lansdowne (electoral district), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saskatoon Stonebridge. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electorates are part of the process of electing members of the New Zealand parliament (both under Mixed Member and the former FPP systems). And as per WP:NPOL, anyone elected to parliament is presumed notable. There is plenty of coverage around the 1996 electoral distribution. Ajf773 (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electorates aren't mentioned on WP:NPOL. Just because politicians are notable doesn't mean their electorates or offices are automatically notable. This is a flawed inherited notability argument. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one here agrees with you. Ajf773 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2024 (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.