Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Ravlich


 * 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   redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand. And merge from history as needed. Consensus is that this shouldn't be a separate article.  Sandstein  14:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Ravlich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable politician. Failed to win office (47 votes in Mount Albert in 2005, 67 votes in Auckland Central in 2008). Only coverage is about a minor local news event. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 11:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 11:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 11:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Related Articles for deletion/Human Rights Party (New Zealand), political party founded by Ravlich. -- GreenC  20:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Did not win election fails politician and the single local news story resulting in a $200 fine was basically manufactured by Ravlich who intentionally broke the law to make a point (and get coverage). -- GreenC  20:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep  in case we decide that the party that he founded is notable enough for inclusion (see the related AfD).  Schwede 66  20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand, now that that has happened to the related article.  Schwede 66  17:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable - way beyond didn't win election. And neither is that party (see wp:Crystal.  Neonchameleon (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand, or any spin-off article using that as a base, as per comments on Articles for deletion/Human Rights Party (New Zealand). Daveosaurus (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect supported NealeFamily (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep He is not just a politician but also a broadcaster and contributor to public debate on human rights especially the non-inclusion in the NZBORA of social and cultural rights.Rick570 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No solid coverage from independent reliable sources per our general inclusion criteria.  Definitely doesn't pass our inclusion criteria for politicians.  Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep : subject is well within "our" general inclusion criteria. In particular, the subject is given "significant coverage" (addressing him directly and in detail) and both main references deal mainly with the subject. The NZPA (New Zealand Press Association) and Otago Daily Times references are very reliable secondary sources and they are certainly independent of the subject. The article does not "violate what Wikipedia is not" (sic)Rick570 (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC).
 * you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unelected candidates can be notable if they have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Definitely applies in respect of this person and the article should therefore be kept.
 * 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.