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. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

WestWards

WestWards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non notable political party, has one elected member on one local board in Auckland - that person themselves doesn't pass WP:NPOL and the article seems very much promotional towards that person in regards to an upcoming election. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Completely fails WP:NPOL. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me} _{My edits} 16:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Response: This is the one of two main political parties for Auckland Council in Waitakere and the information is important to voters. There are numerous articles that have been referenced from New Zealand's major newspapers. The other main party for Waitakere has put its information up now, and now is trolling to have this entry about their competitors taken down. The North Shore area parties for Council (Shore Action) also has a facebook page. The format for the Shore Action page is the one followed for consistency. If local political parties can not have an entry then all must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeijoaSalsa ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note This user ( User:FeijoaSalsa) created the article and seems to have a conflict of interest with its subject. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me} _{My edits} 03:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Creating a post doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest with a post. I have no conflict of interest. And the post shows no bias. If you have a specific point to make about the post itself or a concern you should raise it rather than ad hominem attacks. The entry is factual about a local party who is running for local office created in the same style as other local parties in Auckland's election . I note that the competing party has put up a wikipedia entry at the same time that the request for the deletion of this page occured. This seems to be a political act to deny the public the right to public information about the local candidates and their parties. It's unclear what the deleters conflicts are. Again their must be consistency on Wikipedia. If this entry is deleted then no local body political parties should have their entries allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeijoaSalsa ( talk • contribs) 04:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

That is not how things work. Political parties need to demonstrate they meet the notability requirements. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@The Notability requirements for political parties talk page seems to have not reached a final conclusion. However, WestWards does meet the criteria being discussed. Have campaigned for 2 years. Has an elected member who has numerous articles in New Zealand's national papers which have been included. Is the leading opposition party. To not include smaller parties or independent parties would be anti democratic and deprives voters of a fair choice. So it is a significant party consistent with the other local parties have put entries up for Wikipedia. Targeting this party seems to be a political act. FeijoaSalsa ( talk) 02:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, non-notable local political group. All the references given are about their chair, and some don't even mention the group.- gadfium 03:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment, It's disturbing that the Policies section has not a single source, and the Elections section has an unsourced list of candidates and claim of no conflict of interest. I've looked in vain for sources, and suggest a compromise – remove these sections, leaving the remainder until after the election (less than two months away), then resubmit this AfD if the party achieved no further notability. Akld guy ( talk) 11:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails Passes WP:NPOL. -- SalmanZ ( talk) 18:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, WP:NPOL is irrelevant. It's only for articles about people. This AfD is about a political party. Akld guy ( talk) 19:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comments. Do those in favour of deletion think that Future West and Rodney First (both have tags questioning their notability) are notable and should be kept? The correct guideline for political parties is Notability (organizations and companies), not Notability (people)#Politicians and judges (WP:NPOL). Nurg ( talk) 00:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • We're not voting on those other parties here, and I might not vote if they came up for AfD, but both have multiple people elected to local bodies at regular elections, whereas WestWards has a single person elected in a by-election, which had a much lower turn-out of electors. I don't think they are therefore comparable.- gadfium 02:19, 31 August 2019 (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.