Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Party of Aotearoa


 * 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. Chetblong T C 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Communist Party of Aotearoa

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, no reliable independent sources. 1,410 Google hits look somewhat promising, but (among the first 1,000 of those), there are only 58 distinct ones. AMong the 6 Google books hist, some are not independent, one cannot be accessed, and one describes it as "a minuscule new party", which is not really promising.. Theer are no hits for this party in Google News. When you couple this lack of reliable sources with their preference to operate clandestinely, there aren't much arguments left wh we should have an article on them. Fram (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. CPA marks an important continuation of the legacy of CPNZ. If it was to be deleted, there would be a void in the history of the NZ left at wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there currently any books about the (recent) history of New Zealand that even mention (let alone discuss at length) the CPA? Do all these books have a "void" by omitting it, or is it, just perhaps, not so important after all? Fram (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom No evidence of notability.Bardcom (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mentioned as an offshoot; seems quoted in international Maoist circles (though those poor chaps are reduced mainly to geocities websites now). Fascinating links between Communism in NZ and Enver Hoxha exist, and this is part of the story. Relata refero (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. For political parties google hits is certainly a non reliable way to check notability. Many parties don't have homepages and their documents are not published in the net. Check Posadism for example that the individual documents in the net are so few and usually with non-political content. Still Posadism was an current in trotskyism and Posadas is considered as an important communist leader and his unsuccefull attempt is still important for study.

Secondly, this party is important because its the result of the antirevisionist struggle in New Zealand. This struggle was held worldwidely and in almost countries. This is an important part of the communism history and its certainly under the scope of politics science. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting because the party is miniscule sounds like WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. StAnselm (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And do you have any indication that it actually is notable and noted? It is not like we have tons of references, but I still want to delete it because it is minuscule. The problem is that we have very few references, none of them in depth, and the fact that it is or was a minuscule party increases the chances that more and especially better independent sources wil not be available. Fram (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The length of the article reflects the size of the party and the low number of references. It does no harm. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To reflect StAnselm above: this is just WP:HARMLESS... Fram (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I've given a look at the 6 sources in question: at least 3 are valid. And as for "a minuscule new party", what's interesting is that he felt it notable enough to criticize it.--Aldux (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (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.