Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitoba Marijuana 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manitoba Marijuana Party

This supposed political party gets 34 Google hits when Wikipedia and its mirrors are excluded. The article presents no independent, reliable and verifiable sources to show the party is notable, or to show that they are a serious political party, or to show that they got candidates on the ballot and received votes in an election. Appears to lack notability and to lack the reliable independent sources needed to write more than a stub articleEdison 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no verifiable sources provided to establish notability - 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Elections Manitoba, the agency which oversees elections in that province, includes the Manitoba Marijuana Party in its list of registered political parties at http://www.electionsmanitoba.ca/main/media/parties.htm --Eastmain 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That proves they exist (which is a plus) but what we need for notability is newspaper mentions or similar. Shaundakulbara 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a registered political party, which means that it's automatically notable. Also, the reason it gets so few Google hits might have something to do with the fact that it was called the Libertarian Party of Manitoba until 2005. (The Manitoba Libertarians have been fielding candidates in provincial elections since 1986.) CJCurrie 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is now verified. There will be an election in 2007 or 2008. If the MMP is in fact defunct, there would be an argument for merging this article into the Libertarian Party of Manitoba article. its lakc of a website, however, is not proof of defunctitude. Life does exist outside of the web, you know. Ground Zero | t 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable but I'm a little concerned Chris Buors is mostly referenced to Internet forums. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Does it say somewhere in the Wikipedia notability criteria that all self-described fringe political parties in the world are inherently notable enough to have an article? As a non-Canadian, I do not know have a feel for how hard it is to become a "registered" political party in Manitoba. The fact that one person can decide to change a party from Libertarian to Marijuana is not very impressive. How does Wikipedia treat parties in the U.S. or other countries which get a few hundred out of a couple of hundred thousand votes, and which seem not to have been mentioned in the press? If there are no independent, reliable and verifiable sources (other than for the fact of having registered) how can editors obtain enough info to write an accurate and encyclopedic article? I feel that the technicality of "registering" does not automatically confer notability. We have defeated city coucil and county board candidates in major cities who are not notable for articles, but have extensive press coverage and many times more votes than this party got. Edison 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are currently only six registered parties in Manitoba (New Democratic, Progressive Conservative, Liberal, Green, Communist, Marijuana). Parties must field at least five candidates in a provincial election to retain their registration. This isn't a case of someone just waking up one day and declaring a new party; there's a process that has to be followed. CJCurrie 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Registered political party. Accordingly, their candidates might not be notable enough for individual articles, but the party certainly is. Keep. Bearcat 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep. --Mista-X 04:45, 31 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.