Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Republic of New Zealand Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. This AFD has been all over the map which is an argument for sometimes relisting AFD discussions as opinions can change over a week or two. It's been messy but I now see a consensus to Keep this article, or, at least, the information on it in some form. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
The Republic of New Zealand Party
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Republic of New Zealand Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG, there is no significant coverage of the group bar the New Zealand Herald article in the article. The rest of the coverage in the article is non-independent/trivial/routine reporting. Nothing I could find with a search for the party's name turned up any SIGCOV. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support --LJ Holden 09:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Redirectto List of political parties in New Zealand#Parties that never held seats. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)- According to that list it is 'limited to notable parties', so any party without an article would not be included. I don't have an issue if the criteria is changed for that list but currently it would exclude any article deleted/redirected at AfD from being included. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NLIST: not all members of a class have to be notable per se. FWIW, the reliable source reporting about the party (eg Small parties battle election arithmetic (2005), Police investigating after flag burnt at Parliament (2010), Police on to anti-royals (2012)) is borderline, but not quite there in my mind for a GNG pass as only one piece has SIGCOV. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes but the selection criteria is for notable parties only, that criteria (or at least wording) would need to be changed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- I mentioned this a while ago on Talk:List of political parties in New Zealand#Parties not notable enough for an article a while back but haven't had any traction. I'd be happy for this party to be covered there instead of an article, but I think it shouldn't be deleted yet with the assumption that such an outcome is possible until that article's scope has been resolved. Turnagra (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes but the selection criteria is for notable parties only, that criteria (or at least wording) would need to be changed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NLIST: not all members of a class have to be notable per se. FWIW, the reliable source reporting about the party (eg Small parties battle election arithmetic (2005), Police investigating after flag burnt at Parliament (2010), Police on to anti-royals (2012)) is borderline, but not quite there in my mind for a GNG pass as only one piece has SIGCOV. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- According to that list it is 'limited to notable parties', so any party without an article would not be included. I don't have an issue if the criteria is changed for that list but currently it would exclude any article deleted/redirected at AfD from being included. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)- Comment I am okay with a redirect based on discussion to change the criteria on the target page's talk page. RfD always exists to handle the redirect in the future. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep - I favor the lowest of low bars for WP articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. This is exactly the sort of information that our readers rightfully expect of us. I will add that this is a GNG pass... THIS from the footnotes is compelling. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t mind whether the content of the article is hosted on its own page or merged to some list. There must be a space somewhere for content covering parties that achieved registration, though. As long as it is not sorted where to merge content to, I vote keep. We cannot delete the content about a party that was once registered; it must have a home somewhere. Schwede66 16:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - given subsequent contributions, moving to the keep side of the equation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2025 (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.