Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Progressives (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Progressives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a non-parliamentary party which has never run candidates at an election, it fails notability. The article has weak independent sourcing as all it has done really is start - most refs are to its own site. The AEC register suggests its headquarters are a residential flat in the outer suburbs. Its first nomination was inconclusive due to a lack of feedback, with several people suggesting userfication, which I would support in the event that it does become more notable at some stage in the future. Orderinchaos 12:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Orderinchaos 12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Time for a pingathon! @Frickeg: @Carrite: @The Drover's Wife: @Davewild: @IgnorantArmies: @Coffee: @Randykitty: - that would be everyone who participated in the last discussion. I nominated last time, and this time I'm going to declare my don't give a fuckism about it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Same rationale as last time. We can't adequately cover Australian elections without covering our kind-of unique system of microparties and the role they play through preferential voting. Two parties with exactly this level of notability got people elected in 2013 (even though one result was overturned by the courts), and the preferences of many more were crucial in which people from larger parties got elected. There's just no way you can adequately explain this without having articles on all the bit players. I will support deletion of microparties if there is just nothing to write an article on, but that is not the case here. If we start deleting parties like this, readers will invariably come looking for information about them when they matter and make even more news at the next election, and we'll have actively stopped them from finding what they were looking for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy. Yeah, I'm going this way again. I still think our rationale needs to be that inherent notability for parties derives from registration and contesting an election (although parties can of course be notable without meeting this benchmark). The recent Danig Party AfD, as well as the deregistration of another never-ran by the AEC, further convinces me that this is the way to go. As for the sources, I see one source on a minor spat between two micro-parties, and a minor mention of same in another much longer piece, which is not enough for WP:GNG in my view. In the event they make further news leading up to the election, and if and when candidates are announced and confirmed, we can reconsider. It may be appropriate to userfy the article in the meantime. Frickeg (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am slowly coming around to this after recent examples: I think it's a stance that would have served us really badly in the 2013 election, but there have been a spate of recent examples - Danig and Coke In The Bubblers as you said, and The 23 Million that we discussed earlier, that just draw a really long bow for notability in spite of having been registered. I don't think there should be a high bar for notability in cases like this and I feel like if this isn't made out here it's at least close to it, but the more I think about it the more I'm on board with no inherent notability for registered parties yet to contest an election. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I don't actually think this stance would have hurt us much in 2013, because by running candidates the parties would have met the requirements. If I recall correctly, such was the flood of new parties that there were actually a few we didn't even have articles on until after the election. Frickeg (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My view is unchanged: I favor the lowest possible bar to inclusion of pieces on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology. If you wanna file this under an argument based on the site policy of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense), fine, but this is the sort of information that a comprehensive encyclopedia should include. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Counting articles towards fulfillment of GNG, THIS article in the Australian Guardian absolutely counts as one... Carrite (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. It's a registered party. Perhaps the Mutual Party article should be linked with this one? Meticulo (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mutual Party was originally the Bank Reform Party, and then after the rename became a front for conservative ex-Liberal Anthony Fels - I'm not sure what they have to do with these people? [edit] The mob Fels aligned with aren't the same people as these ones. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Mutual Party was apparently absorbed by the Australian Progressive Party in March. I don't think the pages should be merged, but perhaps some disambiguation might be required? The Australian Progressives and the Australian Progressive Party seem to be rivals. Meticulo (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the policy arguments raised by Carrite and The Drover's Wife, especially given the existence here of actual coverage in The Guardian. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that AEC registration plus Guardian coverage establishes notability. De Guerre (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.