Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lower Excise Fuel and Beer 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. The nomination has been withdrawn per the message from the nominator (User:JDDJS) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Serious Party, which states “I am taking a break. Any page that I nominated for deletion recently that does not have any delete votes and at least one keep vote can be closed as nomination withdrawn”. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Excise Fuel and Beer Party

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

Not a notable joke party. JDDJS (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sorry, did you read the article? Or any of the references? This was not a joke party, it was a perfectly serious one that happened to have a funny name (and even if it was a joke party, that would have no impact on its notability). Generally within Australian politics we have considered registration with the Australian Electoral Commission and candidates for at least one election grounds for inherent notability; the LEFBP ran for two elections (2001, 2004) and easily qualifies. Frickeg (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Political parties that contest elections are inherently notable. And indeed it was noted at the time. Nothing more is required. -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, party was registred with the AEC and ran candidates, which means there was a fair bit of effort and coordination involved. I'm satisfied with the coverage such as this and this that the party would meet the GNG anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:14, 22 May 2014 (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.