Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakeha 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.  Sandstein  05:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Pakeha Party
Delete its a page made for fun as the maker himself said on radio live that it was never serious and its causing the NZ country to divide its an embarrassment to NZ that we have such uneducated small minded people. Many agree! He admitted he doesn't even know much about New Zealand history and it isn't an actual party yet.
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This unregistered party in New Zealand, based on a Facebook group, was just created recently - the Facebook group itself was only created June 20. They have not yet published any sort of policy or platform (according to one article "supporters who sign up to its website - which is currently under construction - will be able to vote for its policy platforms in the coming weeks"). There is exactly one reliable source about it and a couple blog posts. Does not meet WP:GNG, nor does anyone affiliated with the party. Its article also has very little useful content - its only section is dedicated to grammatical errors on their Facebook page, and it has serious POV issues ("is a racist political party", "Whether the Pakeha Party are "serious", or just "not very smart", is still a hotly contested topic"). It may materialize into a more substantial unregistered party in the coming months, but it's not there yet. Dcoetzee 09:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has substantially changed since I wrote this and seems to be undergoing active edit wars, but regardless continues to have both notability and bias issues. Dcoetzee 09:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The bias issues could be solved by protecting it and reverting it back to IdiotSavant's version. Haminoon (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. - Its certainly not notable, although it possibly could become notable later on. The 'one reliable source' is actually from the Australian Associated Press - I don't think any New Zealand media have mentioned them yet. Haminoon (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd like to withdraw my delete based on the amount of media coverage it has since received, and the absurdly large number of racists who have "pre-joined" the "party" in the last day. Haminoon (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by 'pre-joined'? Liked the facebook page? That doesn't seem noteworthy. At present I can't see in any sense how this can be defined as a 'party'; It has no leader (the person running the page doesn't want to, and admits he has no political knowledge to the extreme of not even knowing when the next election is), no infrastructure, no organisation, no members (the facebook page is still talking in the hypothetical about whether people would become members), no website, no policies. As far as I can tell it exists solely as a facebook page, and one individual admin who explicitly doesn't want to start an actual party himself.121.75.134.62 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep that's right. That's why I added "unregistered and unincorporated" to the page. Haminoon (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But in what sense is it a party, even with the qualifiers 'unregistered and unincorporated'? Surely the fact that there's no one officially attached to this 'party', not even the person who started the whole thing, it can't be said to exist as a party in any meaningful way. Is the Facebook page 'People against the Pakeha Party Party' an unregistered and unincorporated NZ political party by the same standard? 121.74.249.43 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I figure they're a party because they say they are, just like the Communist Party of Aotearoa. Who the hell are they? Not even committed communists seem to know. Haminoon (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing, afaics 'they' don't say they are. The one guy behind the page has explicitly said he doesn't want to run a party. He's merely used the word 'party' in the name of his Facebook page, which he said he intended as a joke playing on the name of the Maori Party.121.74.249.43 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For new unregistered parties its largely done on intent. Do they call themselves a party? Do they say they are going to put up candidates or try and incorporate or register? As an amateur party watcher, it is quite normal for the leadership and even the name of a party to change during the process of establishment (see e.g. Focus NZ). What's unusual is for a new party to get this level of media attention.--IdiotSavant (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No they don't say they're going to put up candidates, there's one guy behind it and he has explicitly said he started it as a joke and doesn't want to run a political party because he has no political knowledge (down to not knowing when the next election is). He even tried to sell the page unsuccessfully for a ridiculous sum. The media aren't reporting it as a real political party, there's nothing equivilent to the organisation of a political party, not even any actual policies, they're reporting it as one person with a facebook page (so even saying do 'they' say is flawed).121.74.247.109 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 09:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a facebook page and nothing more. It is not a political party, registered or unregistered. To even have the word "Party" as part of its title is factually incorrect. It is also not "non-racist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisest woman (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not a registered political party (and likely never will be). At present nothing more than an online joke, any coverage failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The party has only just come to people's attention, and while there were few NZ media sources today, I expect more over the next few days (one obvious one). The POV issues can be resolved as they are for other controversial organisations. As for notability, policy for NZ political parties is that a party is notable if it registers (a high barrier in NZ), registers a logo, or contests an election; because the latter is backward-looking, parties are added to allow material to be developed, then deleted when it becomes apparent that a party was not notable, usually after election day. This party has announced its intention to seek registration, and so it is being treated the same as other parties in the same stage of their life-cycle. --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as per IdiotSavant, as that is how we have traditionally dealt with political parties in New Zealand.  Schwede 66  19:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. As per DerbyCountyinNZ's points. Clearly fails WP:GNG, with a large side of WP:RECENT. Also agree with Wisest woman's point that the article is misleading; it's merely a facebook page at present that's received some attention on a slow news day, not a political party.Number36 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "keep" for the meantime unchanged. It records opinions and what people hope to achieve with them. A few weeks and months will tell whether this is a momentary eclipse of the brain matter or something that goes to the heart of NZ society issues.
 * Delete. I think this page was created too early as it hasn't yet achieved notability. If it does go on to register a logo in the next few months and establish some policies then it may be able to be recreated. Mattlore (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "strong keep" this is a very strong movement and currently has over ten times the support on facebook than the mana party
 * Comment. The person who runs the facebook page has explicitly said he doesn't want to run a political party, and would rather someone with more political knowledge did it. I.e. the alleged 'party' has no leader, hasn't registered as such, has no infrastructure or organisation, and does not qualify to be defined as a 'party' in any way shape or form. Simply starting a facebook page with the word party in the title doesn't qualify, nor does getting facebook likes count as notability or having a couple of new items over the course of a couple of days. Heck, I've seen funny cat stories with more mainstream news coverage. If it sustains and actually goes somewhere it may in that very unlikely event become notable, but we don't look in the crystal ball and have articles on the off-chance something may become notable in the future. As it is we're just talking about a facebook page.121.75.134.62 (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of articles on unregistered New Zealand political parties, see List of political parties in New Zealand. The issue at hand is whether this particular party has the coverage. Currently, I'm not seeing that coverage yet, so Delete. Almost certainly if the party were to run, it would received oxygen and end up with the coverage (alas). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. There does appear to be growing coverage. I think it will meet WP:GNG in a week's time. If not, delete.Couper830 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Question How many sources are needed for significant coverage? Couper830 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of number, but of quality. A single book-length academic study will make a subject notable, for example. In this case, look for longer news-review articles citing multiple authorities. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: the new website http://pakehaparty.org.nz/ in no way qualifies as a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Has made headlines a lot over the past couple of weeks. Official party registration would increase notability, but I think it is already well-established. Adabow (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete After further thought I believe that, like other Facebook pages (some of which receive a lot of media coverage), it is a fleeting phase of limited notability, not really a party in any sense. Adabow (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as there is now enough local and national coverage in all the New Zealand media (TV1, TV3, Stuff, NZ Herald, NBR, and assorted radio stations etc) to now easily meet WP:GNG. The depth of coverage also seems sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Even the Facebook page has become newsworthy - NBR says it is up for sale for a mere NZ$100,000. NealeFamily (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's barely being covered now, it's a handful of instances over a short amount of time, that as far as I can see none of which treat it seriously. A facebook page with this little and nature of coverage does not meet WP:GNG. Articles like the one in the NBR ('Pakeha Party founder tries to flog website for $100k') indicate that it's not an actual political party. I can only assume 'for a mere NZ$100,000' is intended ironically.121.74.247.109 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1,690 hits on mainstream media doesn't make it a handful, with coverage now being over almost two months. Yes, it's not likely to exist in the next General Election, but that does not take it out of the range to meet WP:GNG. The timeframe is not what makes the article significant, it is the significant amount coverage. And, no I don't support the party - it is merely the articles right to exist in Wiki. NealeFamily (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are not 1,690 examples of mainstream media coverage, that's misleading, it is just handful, and the Facebook page itself isn't even one month old started on the 20th of June, so there isn't two months worth of coverage (and it was up for a while before MSN NZ decided to stick it on its front page and got it attention). The amount and nature of the coverage is not significant. Heck that amateur porn filmed with a cell phone on a train in San Francisco has more mainstream news articles worldwide. There's no such thing as a 'right to exist in wiki'.121.73.221.187 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, in reply - the 1,690 came from your Google link - so Google is misleading. The coverage is significant because the "Pakeha Party" is still being covered in mainstream national media and has been for what is now a reasonable length of time. Maybe the porn star is in Wiki, have you checked? And, as to the right to exist - if the article meets WP:GNG then it does have the right to exist. So to check it off: significant coverage = yes, reliable sources = yes (excluding Facebook), sources are secondary = yes, independent of the subject = yes, and meets Wiki is not. Although you may consider the party temporary, juxtaposition with race named parties such the Maori Party means it opens an interesting area of debate in NZ politics. This is why it is has drawn so much attention. From a political science view, this party is significant and thereby notable. NealeFamily (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can see the number of mainstream media coverage is minimal though by scrolling down, and I think a few of those were blogs and opinion columns. I disagree that's been a reasonable amount of time, it hasn't even been a month and during that time there hasn't been a significant amount of coverage, it's not like it's had continious coverage so the length of time itself is immaterial, it's been a few stories. It's also the nature of those stories, which are not reporting it as a serious political party, but one person with a facebook page. And a number of those stories are about him personally, his criminal record, the question of whether the facebook page is racist, his sounding off at Fast Food worker, etc. The 'porn star' is not the subject of a wikipedia page, especially considering at this stage no one knows who they were and it was an amateur recording that went viral. As per WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."121.74.247.109 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2013 (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.