Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not A Party (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not A Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete This page was created by Richard Goode, founder of the party, as a self-promotional exercise. This page fails to demonstrate notability. Nexus000 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, New Zealand has a history of joke political parties in recent decades, see Category:Joke political parties in New Zealand, and this one has lasted for two general elections and increased its number of candidates.-gadfium 02:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. KidAd talk 03:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep: The test for notability (at its simplest) is that there is independent, significant coverage. Most sources in the article are non-independent (from the subject of the article) or are not significant (passing mentions only such as election results). The only two possible signs of notability are the two Stuff articles. However, these only provide scant details about the party. For example, a commenter above described them as a "joke political party", but there isn't even enough information in the articles to determine if that's true, or if the people involved actually take their beliefs seriously. Without significant coverage, this subject doesn't meet the notability requirements. (A side note: the fact that the article was created by a person with a conflict of interest isn't relevant to whether it should be deleted.) HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor IdiotSavant has added a number of new citations, including these three articles. One article is solely devoted to an NAP candidate. I would be comfortable considering these articles to be "significant coverage", and I would ask other editors who voted delete to say if (and why) they feel these three articles do not constitute significant coverage. HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article easily fails the WP:Noteworthy test and the editor probably also violates WP:COI as well. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unlike our other joke parties this one failed to get significant media attention, was never registered, and failed to be funny. Only reliable reference is one sentence in an article that mentions everyone who managed to fill in a candidacy form for a by-election. -- haminoon (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking last sentence based on Idiot Savant's edits. -- haminoon (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Five candidates in an election is significant for an unregistered party in NZ, as is lasting for more than one electoral cycle. I've gone through the references, eliminated a lot of the self-sourcing and found media references to replace them. --IdiotSavant (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking proper coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even with recent edits, still support deletion. Nexus000 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of the problems with articles on tiny unregistered political parties with so few references is the lack of independent analysis, which leads to us relying on the party's self-description. This is a major problem here as members of the public who have turned up to local candidate debates have witnessed NAP candidates advocating far-right policies and sounding off with barrages of racial slurs. Their website is made by people with Nazi-like usernames such as "FÜHRER", and contains calls for competing candidates to be euthanised amongst alt-right-style anti-Muslim misinformation. -- haminoon (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm confused. It says here "After seven days, links to discussions are automatically moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions to the below section Old discussions." This conversation started at 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC), it is now 05:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC). This is 8 days, 3 hours, 42 minutes. Nexus000 (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussions need to last seven days, but it still needs an administrator to review the discussion and make a final decision. Since there are only so many administrators, there can be a backlog. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion has had 5 delete, 2 keep, 1 weak keep. It might seem unclear and messy when you first read this discussion, but when you count the responses it appears to have a clear consensus. Nexus000 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment Now 7 delete, 3 keep, 1 weak keep. Nexus000 (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While this discussion has already had 5 delete and now 4 keep entries, that is not a concensus. This is one of those situations where we risk introducing political bias into Wikipedia by omitting a legitimate and notable viewpoint. Keeping or deleting an article should be an objective process, not one that is based on ones own (perhaps unconscious) political bias. Notability is permanent and independent of noteworthy article content. These people have stood multiple candidates in 3 by-elections, a local election, 2 general elections (in 5 electorates in 2020) and their candidates have achieved over 2000 votes in the process. In the next election, voters are going to ask who are these people and what is their history, and, if we delete this one, somebody is going to write a new Wikipedia article, and we will go through this process all over again. I think it is far better to keep this existing article that we know than debate about a new article that we don't. Also, given the likelihood of this article being resurrected by the next election, I don't think deletion is the best solution in any case. Retaining this article has other benefits, like providing an excuse to not to have separate biography articles for each person who stands as a candidate for office. Anybody who stands for political office is already halfway notable in any case. Because its politics, I think we need far more than 9 people to achieve a consensus that everyone can agree upon. Please remember this is a consensus debate, and that means an overall agreement, not just a majority vote should decide. As to the article's importance or quality, that is a very different story that should not be a factor in a deletion debate. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NAP is not a legitimate and notable viewpoint. If you look at the talk page, we have trouble even figuring out what their beliefs are and can barely find references covering it, or find any references covering the party at all.
• I strongly doubt this article will be revived if it is deleted. They hardly have any media coverage, most of which are trivial mentions, and likely won't in the future. They also don't appear to make any attempt to promote themselves at all.
• The total number of votes all candidates have gotten does not demonstrate significance. The lowest votes a candidate has gotten is 5 votes (0.11% of the vote) and the highest is 112 votes (0.29% of the vote), both of which are very low. I believe barely anyone will ask themselves who NAP are, let alone know it exists. If people were asking who they were, naturally news outlets would notice and NAP would also be getting press coverage, but they aren't.
• I don't think this is a decision on political bias. People are assessing it based on WP:GNG, as we should, which it clearly fails to meet. Nexus000 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in reply If NAP does not hold a legitimate and notable viewpoint then we would have 100% voter turnout in all our elections. Not holding or expressing a viewpoint is a viewpoint and it is notable because a lot of people, perhaps 20% to 50% of the electorate hold it, so don't vote. We don't know why these people don't vote but we know they hold that sort of viewpoint because their votes are missing. this is a Known Unknown. In some respects, NAP are an oxymoron, a political party that is trying not to be one and standing for election in the hope that no-one will vote for them or anybody else. The fact they have set up a website to apparently publicise their cause suggests they are not being as true to the cause as they claim. They are apparently been successful because they have such a low number of votes. Arguing that a low number of votes and lack of media engagement means these people are not notable is displaying a political assumption that you must vote and be reported in the media to be counted. Yet about a quarter of the electorate, in recent times, has not bothered to vote in elections. NAP claim success by not receiving votes, so perhaps everyone who did vote for them misunderstood their claimed lack of policies (aside from the implied one about not wanting to be elected). The fact these people stood in an election makes them halfway notable, the fact they have stood in several seals the deal, they are notable in my view. What they stand for and how many votes they get provides for interesting content as does their website and what limited media reports we have of them not participating in democracy and while that is their right, I don't see Wikipedia has the right delete the article about them just because they don't play the game like other people do. While a lack of media coverage makes them harder to produce a good Wikipedia article, I think these people are going to continue to stand in elections and only become more notable as a result, in the future. I am happy for this article to be redirected or merged into some other article about New Zealand politics or election results but I don't believe the stand-alone page should be simply be deleted because that would be as if the party never existed. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in reply We're going to go in circles if we keep going, but I will say this. You used over 2000 candidate votes overall as an argument for its notability, so I demonstrated why that doesn't mean anything. If we do follow their objective of not getting votes, then we need to use significant media coverage (which is more important) to determine if they are notable, which they fail at.
• NAP has ran in 12 elections total and as it stands fails to pass basic WP:GNG, so I'm not convinced they will become notable in the future. The possibility of a subject becoming notable in the future is also a weak argument to keep a page as it is.
• I believe this party is so irrelevant it hardly exists, but if someone feels passionate about maintaining it on Wikipedia, they are welcome to create a section on NAP on a relevant page. This page is the most relevant I could find. But as it stands, it is barely covered by reliable media, is barely known by people, has failed to reach the members needed to register as a New Zealand party, and does not meet the standards of WP:GNG for having its own page. Nexus000 (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't consider the coverage in reliable independent sources to be significant enough. Nurg (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand where it is already listed. Article sources are mentions or are not about the party but about unelected candidates from the party and contain brief mentions, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. They do not appear to have any elected candidates and do not appear to impact New Zealand politics in any notable way. This might be TOOSOON but CRYSTAL; the redirect can be converted back into an article if they being to receive SIGCOV and the content will be preserved in the history.  // Timothy :: talk  10:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.