Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Rights 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 redirect‎ to Jill Ovens#Women's Rights Party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Rights Party[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google search gives only party website. Only RS, non-primary source coverage is this Newsroom article. Fermiboson (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not familiar with notability criteria for political parties, but this one has got almost no coverage. It certainly was registered, but I'm unsure if that counts as notable. Out of memory, it also only received about a thousand votes. There are so few sources that people are adding their own interpretation of the party (transphobia), which is unsourced. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Panamitsu, Political parties fall under WP:NORG and have no special exceptions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panamitsu, you vote "delete" or "keep", or variations by adding "strong" and "weak", when you respond to AfDs. There are other options as well, e.g. "redirect" or "draftify". It might make it easier for others to parse your !vote by showing it as "delete"; I interpret that is what you mean by "support". Schwede 66 00:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete is what I meant. I've now changed it from "support" to "delete". —Panamitsu (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with no objection to it being draftified and/or redirected. This is a very new party and the coverage seems to be very thin. The searches are difficult because of its generic name. Most of the hits refer to other organisations, or are just descriptive, and most predate its founding. WP:TOOSOON seems to be the main thing here. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one source has anything vaguely approaching WP:SIGCOV; I don't believe GNG is met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2023

Delete - Party has not got any discernible base of support, it appears to be another in a long list of protest and complaints parties which Wikipedia does not include per se. It must have general coverage and wide reliable coverage which this party does not have. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jill Ovens#Women's Rights Party. There is a small amount of coverage there that could be slightly expanded with what's in RS without becoming UNDUE for a biography article. There isn't enough coverage (yet?) to meet GNG as a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the party's founder Jill Ovens. The party hasn't received enough coverage to justify its own article, which is unusual for a registered party. Schwede 66 00:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept or redirected it (or the target) should probably have a hatnote to Women's Party (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to founder Jill Ovens. Not enough coverage to meet GNG. It's especially problematic because the group is controversial. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either to Jill Ovens or to List of political parties in New Zealand#Registered parties outside Parliament Daveosaurus (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just added to the article with other RS articles from Stuff and RNZ so now the Newsroom story is not the only one. I think that the party is notable but unfortunately the page has been plagued by unconstructive editing due to the controversy of the party's ideology. Kiwichris (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two RNZ sources you added both are passing mentions, and don’t count towards GNG. Fermiboson (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing, list and adjacent mentions do not pass the threshold for GNG and therefor do not count. Volume of sources is great, but the subject of the article must be the subject of the source, and the sources must also be reliable, verifiable and encyclopaedic. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jill Ovens#Women's Rights Party per Thryduulf. The very thin coverage available indicates that this is a single-issue party or possibly a vanity party, and it doesn't merit a separate article at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jill Ovens#Women's Rights Party -- I've seen in political party discussions suggestions that a party should be considered notable even without coverage if they had won X offices or got Y% of the popular vote in a national election, which seems at least reasonable to consider. I don't recall what X and Y were, but am pretty confident that X was more than 0 and Y was more than .1. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Jill Ovens#Women's Rights Party. It doesn't meet the general notability guidelines because there is at most one piece of coverage that is reliable, independent, and substantial. I think this article particularly highlights a key reason for this rule; in the absence of substantial writing about this party, editors are adding a lot of interpretation of the minimal sources in order to make a basic article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jill Ovens#Women's Rights Party. I agree with the redirect comments. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing alert. Look at this.

SparklyNights 21:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The media coverage of political parties during the several months leading up to the General Election in New Zealand of has been almost exclusively of the 4 largest political parties. The next down in size is New Zealand First - a populist political party that has had success in previous elections, but not the immediately prior one) that has since proven to have received sufficient support to be needed in order to form the next government. But in the months during the lead up to the election, and even during the election campaign period itself it too received little to no coverage compared with any of the bigger parties. To delete a page about a serious political party with serious intentions merely because the left-leaning mainstream media in New Zealand chose to ignore them doesn't seem to be a good reason to delete the page. Noteworthy is the fact that despite being largely ignored or negatively portrayed by the lefist mainstream media, and despite no government provided funding, and despite the relatively short amount of time between when the party was registered and when the election was held, they managed to win support from over 2,500 New Zealanders - 5 times the number needed in order to register the party, and was not the least supported party ( https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2023/ ).

Trust in Mainstream media in NZ is continuing to decline. (https://www.aut.ac.nz/news/stories/trust-in-the-news-slips-further ). Mainstream media organizations were being editorially controlled by the government by means of the Public Interest Journalism Fund, administered by NZonAir which was explicitly requiring compliance with government policy as a condition of receiving the funding. So any political party that did not comply with all of the criteria specified by the then majority Labour Government simply could not get traction in mainstream media because those media organizations were and are still afraid of the funding being withdrawn. ( https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~kab/dd/PIJF17July23.pdf and https://d3r9t6niqlb7tz.cloudfront.net/media/documents/220221_PIJF_General_Guidelines_updated.pdf ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E001:5000:6F01:C116:BE4D:C287:A3DA (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC) — 2406:E001:5000:6F01:C116:BE4D:C287:A3DA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please be aware that the above comments are classic arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion and an appeal particularly begging for mercy for an article PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a fair point made that NZ media mostly ignored smaller parties this election, and the irony that some media outlets did cover parties like this one (such as The Platform) but are not allowed to be included here because Wikipedia judges them to be not reliable enough. Kiwichris (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sound of conspiracy nonsense here and no way strengthens any arguments., if anything it weakens the reasons to keep. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that ironic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument that something didn't get enough coverage because of external factors but is still notable in spirit despite the lack of coverage is specifically noted as an argument to avoid. QuietCicada - Talk 23:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to assume bad faith here, but this entire thing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If your claim is that reliable sources are unreliable, you can raise that at WP:RS, not here. The claim about, essentially, NZ government suppressing free press is, well. It speaks for itself. Fermiboson (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that an article without reliable sources to provide notability should be kept because of a need to combat a supposed conspiracy within the New Zealand government and media violates several policies. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not the people are losing faith in the globalist reptillians who are conspiring to keep up and coming parties doesnt matter, the only references to the party are in lists of registered parties, if it isnt relevant, it isnt relevant.

Whether or not you pinky promise that the party is going to become big soon, if it isnt relevant it isnt relevant.

Whether or not they were the absolute smallest party in the country, if it isnt relevant, it isnt relevant. Googleguy007 (talk) Googleguy007 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a legitimate, registered party. It got several thousand votes in the four weeks before the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libran17 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC) — Libran17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is another argument to avoid specifically an arbitrary value must make something encyclopaedia worthy. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. It lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Upon looking for any, what I found instead was what appears to be a press release that expresses they are upset about their Wikipedia page. Well, gosh, why not give them what they want if they lack notability anyhow? VintageVernacular (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing significant coverage here... We have a number of passing mentions and ABOUTSELF but overall I'm leaning towards the topic not yet being notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion because the main target page suggested for a Redirect is actually being discussed at AFD at this moment (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Ovens) so it would be good to have a back-up suggestion if it's decided to Redirect this article, rather than Keep or Delete it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that she is clearly more notable than the party is, so if that article gets deleted that would make this article a definite delete. No other redirect target has been proposed and I can't think of anything plausible. That said, I doubt that it will be deleted so I'd be equally satisfied with a delete or a redirect outcome here. DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a re-direct to List of political parties in New Zealand#Registered parties outside Parliament. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my choice for the target should Jill Ovens be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a decent redirect target if so, yes. VintageVernacular (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; none of the sources provide significant coverage of the article's topic, they just mention it in passing, so it fails the significant coverage requirement of the WP:GNG. And due to the sparse sourcing, there isn't really enough here to merge meaningfully. --Aquillion (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jill Ovens per all above. That article has now been kept, though there is now a deletion review open. If her article is deleted, I wouldn't object to List of political parties in New Zealand#Registered parties outside Parliament as a target though there's not all that much there. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jill Ovens. Oven's page has now passed the AFD and will remain so a redirect can occur. Nauseous Man (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2023 (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.