Talk:New Zealand Representative Party

Proposed deletion

(copying text from Talk:No Commercial Airport at Whenuapai Airbase Party)

While I agree this is a minnow in the NZ political ecosystem, the list of Political parties in New Zealand has a clear policy of listing unregistered parties. This party has at least bothered to apply to register a logo, which puts them in the same category as the Liberals and a step above some which are listed (or have historically been listed).

Party registration in New Zealand is only necessary to contest the list vote. Unregistered parties can and do run electorate candidates, and this bunch are expected to do so. I don't expect it to be more than one or two, but we seem quite happy to include numerous unregistered parties which run at most two candidates per election, or even none at all.

As a party with a registered logo which is expected to run candidates in Parliamentary elections, it should be listed. --IdiotSavant (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Check

The NZRP probably is (or was) a right-wing party, but the article's statement to that effect is POV editorializing. It needs to be substantiated with a reference to authority, or else deleted. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Zealand Representative Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015050352/http://www1.elections.org.nz/news/application-to-register-political-party-logo.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/news/application-to-register-political-party-logo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking for more citations to show notability

I've tried to add more citations to demonstrate notability. However, I don't think it is met.

According to WP:ORGCRIT, "a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." They give a table to show how to apply the criteria, and I've tried to use it for this article.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Electoral Commission logo application	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A single-sentence mention.
Nelson Mail on logo rejection	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	I think this does count as "significant" coverage, though it is only a few paragraphs.
NZRP website	?	N	N	?	N	Primary source. Also, dead link with no archived version.
"Clash with councillors"	N	Y	Y	N	N	Doesn't mention the party at all
Turner running for councillor	N	Y	Y	N	N	Doesn't mention the party at all
Total qualifying sources					1	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I think that the subject matter from this article would be better merged with the list article List of political parties in New Zealand as there are not enough sources to justify a standalone article. What are other people's thoughts? HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)