Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/51st State 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   redirect to 51st state.  Wifione  Message 09:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

51st State Party

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Party never registered, has not run candidates. No independent media coverage.  Schwede 66  03:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Running a single local body candidate isn't enough for notability. --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The 51st State Party has run mayoral candidates in New Zealand, but I'm not sure that is sufficient to fulfill the notability requirements for organizations. There also hasn't been any coverage in third-party coverage, other than the standard reporting of votes by the New Zealand Herald, but that is far from the in-depth coverage needed.  Political parties are not inherently notable on the basis that no organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep Delete I found it interesting. Aequo (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles aren't kept on Wikipedia because they are interesting to some people. Personal opinions shouldn't drive your decisions on deletion discussion, so please avoid that kind of argumentation in the future. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Personal opinions drive every decision. But, in consideration, I'll add that I think articles on political parties belong in an encyclopedia. Aequo (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are here because you are interested in political parties. That's fine.  But it's not a valid argument in a deletion discussion.  Also, why should political parties have lowered requirements for notability compared to other organizations?  That sounds like all political parties are inherently notable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've convinced me. Aequo (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, leave redirect to 51st state. The brief mention in the more general article contributes to the discussion of the worldwide phenomenon, which is notable, but its particular manifestation in New Zealand hasn't had enough impact to be independently notable. JamesMLane t c 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 51st state per JamsMLane. Seems logical, as it is already mentioned in that article. Per nom. & others, not notable enough to merit a stand-alone article at the present time.--JayJasper (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete / redirect sources need to be independent and non-trivial mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:ORG, no objection to a redirect being added after. Mt  king  (edits)  08:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep/Redirect. Mathmo Talk 08:16, 17 November 2011 (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.