Talk:New Zealand Public Party

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the Public Party has recieved increased public coverage in recent times following a merger with Advance New Zealand- it now clearly meets notability guidelines. Here are some examples of the recent coverage- https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/07/jami-lee-ross-advance-nz-merges-with-social-media-sensation-the-nz-public-party.html https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/07/nz-election-2020-new-zealand-public-party-s-policies.html https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/07/covid-19-nz-public-party-leader-billy-te-kahika-denies-encouraging-hamilton-5-to-escape-isolation.html https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/26-07-2020/jami-lee-ross-billy-te-kahika-and-the-rebel-alliance-of-election-2020/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12351040

There has been a significant change in circumstance between now and June 2020. This article should remain. --MerrilyPutrid (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because...

It is our human right to have all information available to us for research...

This party will be part of our upcoming elections and it is important that they are NOT excluded from available public information when all the other parties are "included".

--122.56.196.247 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, it has nothing to do with human rights, and Wikipedia has no obligaton to provide "all information available to us for research". What counts here is WP:Notability, that's all (and I have no opinion on that). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because Jamie-Lee Ross is a notable figure in NZ (due to various scandals he's absolutely a household name) and new parties formed by sitting members of Parliament are notable. 202.150.103.86 (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here)

NZPP is the fastest-growing political party in New Zealand's history. Contrary to what the page says, NZPP has been all over the news media and on TV and Radio.

Their Event this past Sunday in Auckland had over 2300 people present -- unheard of in NZ politics.

Deleting this page would be considered as Election Interference.--Theshadownz (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Lmao, there is no source that says "fastest-growing", merely "fast-growing". And no, that crowd size is not unheard of, NZ First's launch back in 1993 had similar numbers, as did Labour's 2017 launch.--Pokelova (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Election intrerference" isn't a thing as far as Wikipedia's deletion policy goes - we have no obligation to allow any political parties to have articles here. I have declined the speedy deletion request, because the current article is not substantially identical to the deleted version. But that doesn't stop anyone using WP:AFD and seeking a new consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What's with the blantent biass?
Conspiracy theory driven? If you wanna call people who dont agree with you a bunch of nutjobs by try taking that up with all the religious folk and they'll probably start a crusade or jihad. What makes it ok to do it with politics? 1080 is blatantly poison, and you can disagree with the rest as much as you want. But wikipedia isnt suppose to have biass but its blatantly obvious throughout wikipedia that certain views are acceptable and others are scum. Mirddes (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While I understand you feel what has been published here is bias, editors are trying their best to keep things as neutral as possible however they also only post what is said in reliable sources. So everything written on the article is from newspapers that are considered reliable and go with what the general public feelings are with regards to the party and personal being written about. Now you might argue that mainstream media is unreliable or they can't be trusted but as far as Wikipedia is concerned most sources can be and ones used in this article are. So while it goes against your feelings, nothing can be really changed without a reliable source confirming the information. Also just one more point, direct source from the party doesn't count, we don't take first person sources. NZFC  (talk) (cont)  01:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ideology
In the infobox, the following used to be listed in the ideology section:

Anti-1080 Anti-5G technology Anti-vaccination Conspiracy theorism Anti-fluoride Anti-UN Anti-Islam Anti-Lockdown Isolationism

None of these are ideologies, these are policy positions. The only one that might come close to an ideology is "isolationism" but it is unsourced and usually used as a negative smear of its positive-sounding analog non-interventionism, but neither are ideologies regardless: they are foreign policies. The ideology section of the infobox should be kept short and link to an article that actually discusses an ideology, not general information on the policy being favored/opposed. I'd like any additions to this section be discussed here beforehand. 71.17.171.79 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)