Talk:Not A Party

Adam Holland

@Haminoon: The references for this section do not mention NAP, but some of them say he stood for the mayoralty for Auckland Legalise Cannabis. Although NAP endorsed him in early 2016, there's no evidence presented that he was involved in the party subsequently, or that the party endorsed any of his subsequent activities. I think this section should be removed.-gadfium 06:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree Its not relevant to NAP. --IdiotSavant (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@IdiotSavant:@Gadfium: I'll consider removing this. Since he was/is an admin on their web site I think its safe to say his involvement goes beyond an "endorsement". Have you both read the comments on the two AFDs? I'm concerned if we remove the Holland section we'll go back to having article on a political party that doesn't mention their political views. -- haminoon (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that we need reliable sources of those views, which mention the party. The mayoral debate brownface incident certainly should stay, as it happened at an election debate while he was a candidate they had endorsed (though was he running as ALCP as well? The sources seem contradictory). As for the rest, is Holland notable enough to have his own article which could be linked to? (there certainly seems to be multiple, reliable sources). --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How do you know he was an admin on the website? What was his most recent activity there? It looks to me like he was in the party in 2016, but didn't run for Mt Roskill despite the early press release, and ran for the 2017 mayoralty for a different party. I don't think the views and actions of Holland a year or more after the last reference showing he was a member is appropriate for an article on the party. They would certainly be appropriate for an article on Holland, but despite some sources I don't see that he's actually notable.-gadfium 16:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the opinions Holland expresses are necessarily the views of NAP. Unless the article states he is part of NAP or NAP gives input on the article, I don't think Holland's views or actions necessarily reflect on the party. Nexus000 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

So why have them in this article? It's potentially not fair to NAP that a substantial part of the article is about the extreme views and actions of someone who might no longer be associated with them at the time. This is a WP:BLP violation, because other living people are associated with the party, and we have no idea whether they condone this or not. We have to be careful, and that means taking out material which we're not sure are the views of the party.-gadfium 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input everyone. I've deleted that section per consensus. Gadfium, its clear from nap.org.nz/author/adam/ he was an admin. IdiotSavant, its a feature of unregistered parties that people can represent several at the same time. eg. Holland was spokesperson for the "Alt Right Party", "Auckland Legalise Cannabis party" and NAP at the same time. -- haminoon (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)