Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive Money New Zealand

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. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everybody that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. I afforded no weight whatsoever to rationales consisting of little more than "not notable" without any sort of intelligent elaboration; I also discounted Dream Focus' "I see nothing wrong with the sources provided" as it fails to address the concerns raised by others about the independence and/or reliability of the sources. As such, the only strong arguments are those which assert that there is no coverage in reliable sources, and thus the result has to be delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Money New Zealand

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

The party has received little independent news coverage and is not running its own candidates in the 2011 general election, hence does not meet notability requirements. Schwede 66 17:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Meeting WP:GNG, per [1] and [2]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only independent source I see is [3], which is a journalism students work. Note that scoop.co.nz articles are usually not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Scoop (website) not be considered independent? Dream Focus 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because they mainly just publish press releases. Schwede 66 21:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case, the "source" in question is in fact a press release from Positive Money.--IdiotSavant (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they've only just launched.... I'd wait until the events of the 27th are over (is only a few days away after all!) to see what happens. I expect the limited mentioned they've already got will only have grown from the current state. Mathmo ^Talk 08:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 27th is only relevant to political parties. They're not one (the political party is the New Economics Party). --IdiotSavant (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nothing wrong with the sources found. Dream Focus 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are woefully inadequate. Both the sources listed by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) are unreliable. The first is an article written by a journalism student on a WordPress site whose URL is newswire.co.nz—doesn't instill any confidence in me. The second is a press release straight from Positive Money itself—neither reliable nor independent. A Google News Archive search for "Positive Money New Zealand" yields zero results. The subject fails the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the GNG, 0 results on both the NZ Herald and Stuff websites, didn't rate even a trivial mention. The Scoop press release is primary source content, same basket as the subject's own website and doesn't count towards notability. XLerate (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:38, 22 November 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.