Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not A Party


 * 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 no consensus. If User:Cody Cooper wants to take the initiative they are welcome to do so. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Not A Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. Not enough independent coverage to state what the party stands for. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability present as an official state party that is relevant but clearly more information about the party's official platform may be needed. --JohnnyCashMoney (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what "official state party" means but I'm pretty sure it won't apply to this party. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Haminoon. This maybe should have said registered party, not official state party, but this party is not registered and it doesn't appear it ever has been. HenryCrun15 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Keep . Looking over other very small or only briefly active NZ parties, it appears the standard that has previously been applied is that any party, even if unregistered, stands for an election (including by-elections), then it is notable. That would apply here. I have tried looking for sources other than their own website for information on their policies and I did find one brief snippet. HenryCrun15 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Strong Keep - Has reasonable coverage; all other nz political parties, registered or not, have a wikipedia article. J947 07:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you point to any of the reasonable coverage in reliable sources? The only reference there now is one sentence in Stuff. My main problem with this article is the accuracy - what the party says in forums is completely different to what this article says - which is why we expect wiki articles to have indepth independent reliable sources. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 21:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick google search and I could find a couple of articles on scoop, one on The New Zealand Herald, and another on Radio New Zealand. As I am on holiday and restricted to mobile use, I can't really provide links to those sources. J947 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks J947. However the Scoop article is actually a press release, the RNZ one only mentions them in the list of candidates, and the NZ Herald one is on the by-election and merely quotes a couple of sentences from the press release. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 22:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV Insufficient instances of non-trivial coverage in sources independent of the subject. Happy to change to keep if someone can indicate a notability policy for political parties which this satisfies (does not seem to be covered by WP:NORG, which this also fails). DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 07:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As this is my first involvement in a deletion discussion, I've tried to learn more about the process. I'll set out all my thoughts here in part as a learning exercise for myself. To merit an article, a topic must be notable, that is, it must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "Significant coverage" means it addresses the topics "directly and in detail". Multiple editors have now searched for these sources and while we have found independent, reliable sources, none address Not A Party directly, or in detail. They mention the party in passing and in little detail. With a lack of 'significant coverage', the topic is not notable and should be deleted. My previous comments on "we have done this before" aren't appropriate as the "What about article X?" argument should be avoided. However it does highlight that if this topic is not notable, then many other articles on political parties wold also need to be considered for deletion. As I said before I am new to this but would be interested in feedback if I have correctly interpreted the issue. HenryCrun15 (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is a very accurate summary of the issues. As you seem to have changed your opinion, you should strike through your original "Support" above, by using, as J947 has done above. Mattlore (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. J947 02:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep well supported by sources, and actually stood a candidate. Policy for NZ political parties is to list all parties which actually stand candidates in elections or by-elections.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there, as I said above I'm new and keen to learn. I couldn't find the policy you mention in your comment. Can you provide a link to it? HenryCrun15 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Move I'd be happy to see one combined page of smaller NZ registered political parties similar to this. They are not all necessarily notable on their own.  by  c o d y  10:41, 14 January 2017 (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.