Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Party (2019)


 * 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 delete. Tone 09:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Kiwi Party (2019)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable as a political party: not registered, not running candidates. Has had some media coverage of their court cases over NZ gun law, but not enough to be notable IMHO. IdiotSavant (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard about this party before. They seem pretty obscure and haven't attracted the media coverage that the New Zealand Public Party and the New Conservatives have. I am inclined to support deletion unless someone can find more sources to establish its notability. Andykatib 02:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be covered enough by New Zealand Herald, also in an academic paper. Also the second legal case looks like it clarifies NZ law.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough  00:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC).


 * Keep Between the New Zealand Herald coverage and the Psychiatry, Psychology and Law journal article, I think that this organization has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which is the test for notability of an organisation. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I should add though that I can't actually access the journal article, so I'm speculating that it's significant coverage. I'd also be happy if the contents of this article were merged into Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Act 2019. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge into Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Act 2019. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law only mentions them in one paragraph so it fails significant coverage. All the news and journal mentions of this "party" are only in relation to that particular legislation. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 04:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article does not meet notability. Sources which meet RS are just mentions, nothing that is WP:IS SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy ::  talk  07:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete They party hasn't had any significant ongoing coverage and is unlikely to as they aren't registered and they aren't running any candidates in the 2020 election. Any source that mentions them is with regard to them forming due to the one topic, the party isn't notable in itself. NZFC  (talk) (cont)  02:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fringe political party with little or no in-depth coverage of them as a political party. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2020 (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.