Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Party (British Columbia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 12:57Z

[edit] Sex Party (British Columbia)

Sex Party (British Columbia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

extreme finge, nonnotabilty, simply provides free advertising for party TotallyTempo 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC) cat=O

  • Weak Keep - It has a few press mentions (as shown in the sources list) so it passes WP:V and seems slightly notable. Jayden54 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - a properly sourced article about a registered political party in British Columbia. This is a curiosity of the political world that merits an article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia will not be improved by deleting this information. Ground Zero | t 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ground Zero. - Jord 02:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a registered party, and it received a fair bit of media attention in 2005 (for the obvious reasons ...). CJCurrie 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per above - yet another example of Canada's west coast wackiness... --Ckatzchatspy 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Article doesn't read like an ad. Kla'quot 04:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ground Zero. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, again as per Ground Zero's rationale. -- The Anome 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wow! 0.37% of the votes! Edison 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or do we only keep Nazi parties that never made it into a parliament? Alf photoman 17:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Given that the party has notability (notability is not subjective) we can reasonably assess that in addition to the article being sourced and encyclopaedic, no rational has been advanced for deletion. A no-brainer. WilyD 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a registered political party, and the article itself is sourced meeting WP:V and WP:RS. -- Whpq 18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ground Zero. Please close. Just H 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Registered political parties which field candidates in democratic elections should always have articles, regardless of whether they're "fringe" or not; it's impossible for Wikipedia to cover the elections in proper depth if they don't. Keep. Bearcat 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per what I have stated earlier, extreme nonnotability, simply gives free press to fringe movement, something like 0.00015% of total votes cast TotallyTempo 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how "fringe" a political party is. If it's registered with the proper electoral authorities and has fielded actual candidates in a provincial, state or federal election, then it's notable enough for Wikipedia, period. Their individual candidates might not merit separate articles, but the party itself most certainly does. Bearcat 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Met provincial eligibility standards and ran candidates. Plenty of press coverage. I'd argue the uniqueness of its platform further contributes to its notability. The Tom 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this party is sourced and notable erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 02:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, unless anyone has any further objections it seems I have lost this debate. Is it appropriate for me to remove the "Nomination for deletion" tag on the article or is there a proper procedure?. TotallyTempo 15:30, 21 December 2006 (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.