Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Tea 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. Can be easily recreated if this organization becomes more notable in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Tea Party

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

No significant, verifiable coverage from multiple independent reliable and independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider the New Zealand Electoral Commission to be a credible and independent source. They are the authority in NZ on whether a political party is "real" or not, and they're not in the habit of registering logos for parties that don't actually exist. --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never tried to argue that this party was not real; there's no doubt that it exists. But it is still a non-registered party, so it is not inherently notable without GNG passing coverage. A listing on the board of elections site approving the logo is hardly anything significant coverage (it seems that all parties, registered or not, must have their logo approved).--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that all logos must be registered is incorrect. There are longstanding parties which have never bothered to register a logo. Its something which shows a party is actually notable, rather than a failure from the outset.

The policy for New Zealand political parties has always been to include all parties which register, run electorate candidates, or are notable for other reasons (e.g. having MPs, being significantly influential without running anything). Between elections, parties are included prospectively, then deleted if they do not meet those criteria. We have an election in a little over two months, and it will become clear in early November whether this party (and others which have recently been formed) are going to meet notability. I suggest leaving the article for the moment, and revisiting the issue of deletion after nomination day. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 08:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like anyone can register a political party in New Zealand. Considering that there are parties advocating NZ joining Australia and the USA, as well as becoming communist, it doesn't look like merely registering as a party means a lot. The notice of secondary sources is still needed. BigJim707 (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've doubled the number of references and added a link or two. Still very borderline, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if it wasn't deleted before the end of November (i.e. after the election). Disclaimer: I'm an active member of the NZ Wikiproject. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until after the November election, per IdiotSavant. Deletion of a political party article so close to an election seems unfair, given that no one is doubting the actual existence of the party.-gadfium 06:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think the opposite is true for this. It's not our job to equalize the notability of political parties to make it "fair", if it's not notable, we don't have an article on it. For example, let's say this were an article on a non-notable politician and it was right before an election: WP:Politician would have us delete or redirect it, like in this AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that a former-MP (with independent notability) may be running for the party (increasing notability / chances of winning a seat), but none of the sources say so much in so many words, so I've not added it to either of the articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (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.