Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinary Kiwis 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   delete. One two three... 20:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ordinary Kiwis Party

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Party never registered, has not run candidates, is now apparently inactive. No independent media coverage IdiotSavant (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Contrary to the statement in the nomination " No independent media coverage", coverage does exist:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not independent coverage. The first is a press release, and the second is the fact that the party registered with a logo.  Political parties are not inherently notable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not independent coverage. The first is a press release, and the second is the fact that the party registered with a logo.  Political parties are not inherently notable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, the party did not register with the commission or contest an election. Anyone can register a logo with the commission so this does not make the party notable. Mattlore (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I should note that I am the President of the Ordinary Kiwis Party. The party is not inactive but has experienced difficulty getting media coverage since the official election campaigning period started 27 August 2011.  Due to not gaining 500 members in time to be registered by Writ Day, a decision was made not to contest the 2011 election.  Renewed activity is planned in the new year.  JustSylvan (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This political party fails the GNG. The two sources listed by above are trivial or unreliable. "A Week is a Long Time in Politics" is noted as a "Press Release: Ordinary Kiwis Party". Press releases are not reliable. "Registration of party logos" constitutes trivial coverage. Nothing about the party is revealed except that it registered a logo. A Google News Archive search for "Ordinary Kiwis Party" retrieves zero results. Goodvac (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I favor the lowest of all possible bars for articles relating to political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. If existence is verifiable, they should be in — because this is an encyclopedia and that's the sort of information that belongs in encyclopedias. That said, I'm not convinced this is a "real" political party. Someone has registered the logo. Somebody has issued a press release. That's still not clearing my very low bar, although I'd be very happy to advise a KEEP if some sort of minimal, tangible, real world existence can be demonstrated in a published source. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why political parties have a special status among organizations. WP:ORGIN reads that "No organization is exempt from [the requirement of notability], no matter what kind of organization it is." I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Verifiability is not notability. The party has never registered, run candidates, or held a seat, and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources of its activities.  Also, again, let me know if it gets kept, as it probably means I'm notable myself.  :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete sources need to be independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2011 (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.