Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.kiwi

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. Davewild (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

.kiwi

.kiwi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable, one of thousands of new TLDs, unsourced stub. Be..anyone (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 06:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 06:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)-gadfium 06:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Merge to Generic top-level domain. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  Not again, there are already two completely bogus sections .BUILDERS and .CAMP on this page, these two uppercase abominations and a .kiwi would turn the page into a domain junkyard. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – consensus at the .builders and .camp deletion discussions (linked) was to merge to Generic top-level domain. How are the sections in the article "bogus"? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Because they are irrelevant (aka "not notable") unless something special can be reported. Wikipedia is no phone book for hundreds of domains, that's the job of ICANN+IANA. Wikipedia is also no free promotional platform for the purposes of "domainers", a lovely redirect barely missing cyber squatting. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Be..anyone: Note the plethora of sources I have listed below that provide significant coverage about this topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable enough to stand on its own. NealeFamily (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi NorthAmerica - you invited me to review my response in light of Justnotnotable. I have done so and also taken a look at your list of references below. My conclusion is that the article on Generic top-level domain contains sufficient discussion on new domain names and that this does not add to that discussion, nor does it meet the notability guidelines. Adding a reference to enable looking up the IANA list of top level domain names (IANA domain name list) would be sufficient. NealeFamily (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains#Oceania as a more appropriate target than the one suggested above.-gadfium 00:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep – Passes WP:N. Source examples providing significant coverage include, but are not limited to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

– After performing this research, I have struck my initial !vote atop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• delete I see no significant coverage, as in anything to improve upon the stub-like nature of this, as there is nothing interesting to say other than it is a new TLD for NZ, which the mention at List of Internet top-level domains covers adequately.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  There are some good/acceptable/interesting "Geo-TLD" articles, .paris, .saarland, .cat, .berlin, .nyc, .asia, etc., but so far only North America tried to find a story for .kiwi. OTOH all "sunrise"/"landrush" period stories are in essence always the same idea, not "interesting"/"notable"/relevant or whatver from my POV. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG: additional sources:

1. [1] (HighBeam subscription needed)
2. Richard, W. & Raphael, W. (2012). The new top-level domain names. Mondaq Business Briefing. [2] (HighBeam subscription needed).

- Esquivalience ^t 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per NorthAmerica1000—thanks for putting the work into finding sources. BenLinus1214^talk 02:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - per NA1000's findings, As dumb as the name is notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per Northamerica1000. I have struck my previous comment.-gadfium 23:28, 9 May 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.