Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party

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 Merged and redirected. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party

Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This one is kind of hard to explain but it's pretty funny. In any case, I see no hope of this article ever developing to anything more than the current sub-stub: this political party was in fact not a party but a clever way to advertise the Mongolian Barbecus, whatever that is. There is simply no encyclopedic value to the topic other than the trivial anecdote. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This article will never be expanded beyond the stub. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Stubs have value, too, so I wouldn't be willing to delete only because it can't be expanded. However, this seems completely non-notable, having only one google hit outside Wikipedia and her mirrors. Add an entry at List of frivolous political parties for it, though, and maybe redirect this there. Heimstern Läufer 01:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• BJAODN, if only because it's a creative name for a political party. =) Delete otherwise. --Dennisthe2 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, WP:BJAODN candidate. No notability, but not too bad a joke as ad agency products go. --Shirahadasha 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Merge with List of frivolous political parties. --Shirahadasha 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep or Merge I'd like to note that although they were a sham political party, they did manage to garner some votes... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have slightly changed my vote. I think that this should be merged into List of frivolous political parties. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-serious political parties with silly names and/or promotional agendas are something of a tradition in UK elections. One or two are long-running and well-known enough to merit an article i.e. Monster Raving Loony Party. But most get a tiny handful of votes just for being on the ballot and attracting the fuck-politics vote and then disappear. Fine if all these little joke parties are collected on one page. But too trivial for their own articles Bwithh 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Delete unless there is evidence that this was covered in British news, in which case I think it would be notable. JCO312 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was covered in British news. [1] —siroχo 08:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Their name in quotes reveals 19 google hits. Quadzilla99 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless there is an article like List of British nonsense political parties that this can be merged into. Resolute 03:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per Quadzilla99, but BJAODN it due to its name. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge it with List of frivolous political parties. A search at my library shows this party was at least briefly mentioned by The Ottawa Citizen, CNN, The San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, The Guardian, etc. -- Dragonfiend 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge Per User:Dragonfiend redirect and merge it. Somitho 10:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN... though per User:Dragonfiend a merge to List of frivolous political parties isn't out of the question.--Isotope23 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I think it is possible that they do just scrape notability, but I can see no evidence of that. J Milburn 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to List of frivolous political parties. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per User:Tony Fox. A political party that actually ran in an election should not be deleted. -- Whpq 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable political non-party. I love Mongolian barbecue as much as anyone (and probably more), but this is barely a farce of a footnote on a list of political stunts. —ptk✰fgs 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, does no harm as it is indeed verifiable. —siroχo 08:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • One, please see WP:ILIKEIT for a list of arguments to avoid. Two, where should we merge to? --Dennisthe2 22:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you had bothered to read the debate, you would have found that he clearly means merge to List of frivolous political parties. Also, I don't think your tone is appropriate. Siroxo is not using ILIKEIT arguments, he's arguing that there is no harm in keeping a redirect. Pascal.Tesson 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you're right about the context, but with all due respect, what tone? Near as I can tell, I was communicating nothing of the sort. --Dennisthe2 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Even though I nominated it for deletion, I also feel that redirecting and merging is a great solution, especially since we have a fairly decent source for the existence of this party. Pascal.Tesson 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like we have agreement. Done. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. WilyD 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect megrge into the list `'mikka 19:01, 28 January 2007 (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.