Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restore All Things in Christ 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. Secret account 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore All Things in Christ Party

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

Per what I stated yesterday in the prod tag: Even if Wansink is himself notable (and I don't think he is - cannot find any significant coverage of the man), the "party" isn't. It has one member (who allegedly received "around 90 votes"), is not registered, and has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, or unreliable sources, for that matter (I found mentions in a couple of NZ blogs). Therefore I don't think Restore All Things in Christ meets Notability. Further to this, I'd like to state that the only mention I can find of the party is in the ODT article given. Darimoma (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC

I know Mr. Wansink personally and he has told me several times about his party. There is a YouTube video of him giving a speech for the elections. The reason that there is very little Internet evidence for Mr. Wansink's party is that he is a traditional Catholic who believes that both television and the Internet are bad and can lead to sin.

And if you are considering this article for deletion, then you should also consider the Bill and Ben Party article for deletion too. They are a joke political party that does not stand for anything. At least Mr. Wansink has values that he believes in enough to start a political party over. User:Scottinglis (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC
 * Delete, non-notable party. The Bill and Ben party received about 11,000 votes - rather more than the 90 votes this party received. Yes, the Bill and Ben party are a joke.- gadfium 08:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: That Wansink believes the internet is bad does not explain why there is not significant coverage from other sources of the party he founded. That Wansink believes what he believes very strongly does not make his party notable. Darimoma (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — there seems to be an apparent conflict of interest with the user in question regarding this topic. In either case, I only see one source from a newspaper regarding anything about him. The general notability guideline requires multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. All other sources I see from doing a basic Google search indicates no other nontrivial references. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. As the nominator points out, this is a party with one candidate, and he received 107 votes.  Reviewing the source indicates that this was 107 votes out of more than 34,000 cast in the last election. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   — gadfium  19:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete there are a number of single-person parties around in NZ, and none of them have proven notable. This article clearly fails to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. dramatic (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this is not a party composed of a single person. Just it is this one election that just gone by that it only had one candidate, but it has been going on for many years & had other candidates in past elections. Mathmo Talk 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll note DPF covered this party (kiwiblog is one of the major political blogs, often in the mainstream media) Mathmo Talk 00:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dave Farrar's blog is a self-published source, and so not reliable by Wikipedia's standards.
 * Also, my source for claiming they only had one member was the article itself. I can't find any source backing that up, but nor can I find any source claiming they have more than one member. A search of past election results, however, indicates they have never fielded any other candidates, however:


 * Weak delete The one source isn't significant enough coverage to demonstrate sufficient notability. It's notable enough to be included in a List of very minor New Zealand political parties page, if such a thing exists. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Parties such as these are just labels that candidates who are not part of registered parties fill in when they stand ( instead of "independent"). Party lacks membership, officers, policy, newsletters, etc to indicate it is anything other than a label the candidate adopted. If I stand for parliament every election for the next 30 years under the label "random name party" and get 100 votes each time then neither me nor the party qualifies. Compare WP:MICROCON perhaps - SimonLyall (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability established the usual way. Ethical judgements about what ought to be notable are no substitute for an adherence to a neutral point of view.  I'd like just the facts, m'am. Wily D  15:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you give some reliable sources to demonstrate its fulfilling Notability? Darimoma (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with SimonLyall, a one-man--band is not notable just because he calls himself a party (regardless of any fellow candidates that may have stood previously). Inclusion would make a case for including every Independent or fringe candidate that has ever stood in an election anywhere. Fanx (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Naw, just the ones whose notability is established by reliable sources. Wily D  15:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I proudly announce the formation of the Plan 8 Party. We will be standing on an unbeatable focus group-tested platform of common sense, zero tolerance, honour, justice, egalitarianism, fraternity and generous compassion for the trod-on, except where our polling indicates that our target audience would rather they go screw themselves. join now and get a free apron with boobs on the front. perfect for summer!
 * ...by which I mean delete. The man is not elgible for an article. RATIC is the man, not a party in its own right. You don't have to say 'independent' on the ballot paper, but that's what RATIC means. plan 8 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 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.