Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reform 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 no consensus. One two three... 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reform New Zealand

Reform New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable. Not registered, has never run candidates, little independent media coverage to establish general notability. (Note: please be careful in discussing notability not to confuse this with the New Zealand Reform Party, which was a major political force in NZ during the early C20th IdiotSavant (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. As article creator, I'd note this was one of the proposed centre-right replacement coalition partners for National in case ACT didn't make it past the ballot box on November 26.

However, that did not eventuate and I see the Reform website is dead.Calibanu (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)User Calibanu

• Delete, the party did not register with the commission or contest an election during its very short existence. Mattlore (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Week Keep - Per:

• Cheng, Derek (February 18, 2011). "New right-wing party now shopping round." New Zealand Herald.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The article itself seems to prove that the subject is non-notable. However, if a second independent source with significant coverage is found, the article should be kept. 78.26 (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - This is an encyclopedia. Information on political parties belongs in encyclopedias. I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion for articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections — if it exists, it should be in, just as we include insect species, villages, rivers, professional athletes, and TV stars without a second thought. This purports to be a splinter of ACT New Zealand, a party with 5 in parliament, I believe. From the get-go, that's nearly home-free, as far as I'm concerned. So does it exist? Yes it does, per this article in the NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW. The NZ HERALD is one of the biggest papers in the country. Hey, I'm already done. Articles on political parties belong in encyclopedias. Strong keep. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I favour a low bar as well. But I just don't think this meets it. The party is defunct. Its website is dead, its faceBook page hasn't been used since April. Is a party which existed only for a few months, and not in any meaningful sense, really worth the mention? --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - If the party never registered with the electoral commission or contested an election it is not, in any meaningful sense, a political party, and it falls within the normal rules for the notability of organisations. Which is to say, (a) significant coverage in reliable independent sources and (b) sufficient historical impact to avoid the provisions of WP:ONEEVENT. None of the above coverage is significant. (BTW, I should say that if I lose this argument, and the party is indeed notable, someone should probably get round to writing an article on me, as I fall in a similar but arguably better position.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Information on political parties belongs in encyclopedias. Aequo (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the sources given here, especially the NZ Herald, a national newspaper, are sufficient. As for DFW's point, one key difference between you and this party: you're a living person, so our standards for you would be higher. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Curses! :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Too trivial for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ

^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete sources need to be independent and non-trivial mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. As original creator of the entry, I acknowledge that the political entity in question was stillborn and agree to this entry's erasure. Perhaps some content could be adapted into a new entry on (say) National Party Coalition Partner Problems: 2008-2011, under a section marked Mooted Replacement Parties?

Calibanu (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)User Calibanu

or in [[[Don Brash]]] in relation to his takeover of ACT New Zealand. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Sources have been found. The New Zealand Herald is independent. Dream Focus 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:N per sources Carrite found. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: If the article is deleted I propose moving the article to the WPConservatism Incubator, which is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:50, 14 November 2011 (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.