Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand humour
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Alan Liefting 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but edit some more to conform to NPOV. Useful article for those overseas people who don't get NZ humour when they arrive. Goldfinger820 05:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
New Zealand humour, apart from some of the topics, is very little different from any other humour. Better dealt with under the general article, New Zealand. The present article would be more accurately entitled Australian Jokes about New Zealand; very one sided and probably written by an Aussie. ping 07:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep
Delete. WP is not a humor repository. Cleduc 08:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)It's been fixed. -- Cleduc 07:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Canadian humour was recently vfd'ed, and quickly rose from a useless sub-stub, much worse than New Zealand humour at present, into a wonderful and entirely encyclopedic article putting it into the context of Canadian culture and society, with sections so far on literature, music and television, and it's still growing. Keep and watch the (inevitable) organic expansion. Samaritan 08:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and let grow. Dan100 21:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Move to Australian humour or equivalent. Canadian humour is by Canadians, not about them. Kappa 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and fix. Although, if this page is deleted after a voting call by a New Zealander, then it proves that at least one New Zealander has no sense of humour. FeebleSheep 05:14, 4 Jan 1999 (UTC)
- Keep and agree with FeebleSheep. GRider\talk 18:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep
Delete — in light of the content of 'the character of the nationality's humour' in other similarly named articles (British humour, Russian humour). — Leedar 07:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)Fixed. — Leedar 23:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Keep. Heh... Ping - you might like to see what the article looks like now that I've had a bit of an edit of it! Grutness|hello?
11:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Keep now that the article has been expanded and significantly improved. Jonathunder 00:56, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
- Keep I think it is bizarre that anyone could have thought that this subject could be dealt with adequate with a short section in the main New Zealand article Philip 02:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep ; good ole Grutness has done a sterling job. The article was previously ugly anti-NZ mockery, now it's actually about the NZ sense of humour + comedy. Informative --- Papeschr 03:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Good work Grutness. It's worth keeping now; can I un-nominate it? ping
- Strong Keep. Any article written by a Kiwi, especially a Dunedinite like me, is a good article, according to me. Big shout outs to the St Clair Massive for writing this good article! Scott Gall 10:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but needs a triffle NPOVing. -- AlexR 17:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, but it still needs to be almost rewritten to conform to NPOV standards; it is still largely biased and in some parts about Australian humour, not NZ humour. Neonumbers 01:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but it does need some work. There is too much opinion and self-congratulation in it at the moment (some might suggest the latter is also a NZ trait, but I don't want to prod any hornet's nests). In all fairness, something should be said about the succession of failed attempts at sitcoms over the years. Billy T and McPhail and Gadsby went on far beyond their shelf life, and they were two of the more successful shows. There really were some dire efforts made by others, eg the Lloyd Scott vehicle 'Between the Lines' (wonder if anyone remembers anything about it). A mention of the Topp Twins should also be made, if it hasn't already
- Strong Keep: Which dumb Australian nominated this for deletion? --Thematrixeatsyou 08:58, 1 September 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.