Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOdsownNZ

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=GOdsownNZ}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=GOdsownNZ}})

Fails WP:NCORP and GNG too. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The party never registered as a political party and had only one candidate contest an election. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - while msall, the article is properly sourced and passes GNG.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• :WP:NCORP is the relevant guideline for political parties. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• ::GNG trumps all others. If something meets GNG, it can have an article, regardless of other, more specific guidelines. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• :::Even if NCORP wasn't simply a guide on how to apply GNG to companies, the sources are still outrageously deficient. Since when is two sentences enough for GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I can find almost no coverage about this political party, and the limited coverage I can find is all from 2017. Does not appear to have sufficient coverage to pass GNG. This seems similar to political candidates, who may receive some coverage during the election season, but are not notable purely because of their candidacy. – notwally (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP which explicitly applies to political parties: "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as ...political parties..." Lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." required per WP:ORGSIG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Delete because it just fails notability in my opinion. The CathNews coverage is almost enough but I question whether that is a reliable-enough outlet to count for establishing notability. I found a passing mention in a column in the NZ Herald (now added to the article) but I think it is still not quite enough. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• :The CathNews articles are supplied by GOdsownNZ according to the website. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Very clearly does not pass GNG, even without applying NCORP considerations. 1: CathNews NZ, press release from GOdsownNZ {{n}}. 2: Scoop, press release {{n}}. 3: CathNews NZ, press release {{n}}. 4: NZ Herald, ~ two sentences of coverage {{n}}. 5: Electoral commission {{n}}. 6. GOdsownNZ {{n}}. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.