Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACT Greens


 * 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. It's snowing here and the only delete voter has been blocked as a sock Jenks24 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

ACT Greens

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Local branch of political party is non-notable. No other politcal party has state/territory branch pages. Should redirect to Australian Greens, as per norm. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, several do (and all should). In Australia, nobody belongs to a federal party - people belong to state parties, which compete in state elections and have their own quirks and particularities. Speaking to this particular article, ACT Greens are unusual (along with the Tasmanian ones) in that they operate in a Hare-Clark system and so routinely win lower-house seats and even the balance of power. Having a heap of ACT stuff in the Australian Greens article would not make a lot of sense, that article should focus on the federal party and its national co-ordination. Orderinchaos 10:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't found any state pages. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - in passing, examples of state/territory branch pages - NSW Labor, Country Liberal Party, Greens NSW - Euryalus (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. First one is a now-defunct seperate party. Second is a seperate party registered with the AEC. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per admin comments above. Timeshift (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, while noting that the lack of corresponding pages for the major parties is a gap that needs to be filled. For the Greens, however, this is extra-important, since they all started out as separate, unaffiliated state parties. Frickeg (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets the criteria of WP:ORG - as an organisation it is the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The Greens' structure doesn't require allegiance to or membership of a Federal Party - each state branch makes its own decisions. Similar to the Northern Territory CLP within the wider Federal Coalition. Article could do with expansion beyond just a list of current and former MPs and the current parliamentary agreement - something on its policies and internal workings would be grand. But there's still enough here to make this a viable article within the notability requirements. Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, mainly per Frickeg. I'd also note that the ACT Greens have enjoyed considerable success in elections for the ACT Legislative Assembly and currently control the balance of power in the ACT, and have also run several high-profile (though unsuccessful) campaigns for the federal Senate, so they're clearly notable in isolation of the national-level organisation. This nomination stinks of WP:POINT (it seems to be based on the increasingly tedious meme that somehow the Australian Greens receive special treatment on Wikipedia), and I really don't think that it was made in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nick-D. That is not true at all. I am not trying to make a point. What about Good Faith? Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given your general conduct, it seems a pretty obvious conclusion to draw. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am honestly saying that that is utterly untrue. It hadn't even crossed my mind. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Snowball Keep The party has it's own organization, website, and it has won elections. In addition, there are many news articles about the group. LK (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep & Close - given this was prodded less than an hour before the nominator finally acquiesced and agreed to disengage from any editing related to the Australian Greens (then continued after that point to still argue in favour of this prod here), I think it's safe to assume this might originally have been a vexatious prod. Happy to let the prod die a quiet death without further action (the wider issues having been comprehensively outlined elsewhere) but this should probably be closed and forgotten about. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC).
 * That is incorrect. Firstly, I did not agree not to edit this article. It was not vexatious. It has been supported by some editors. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into your proposed topic-ban, subsequent block or your efforts to mitigate against either suggestion - you obviously cannot respond here and it would not be in good faith for me to kick you while you're down. Suffice to say I am happy to acknowledge I misunderstood your commitment to "edit in other areas now" if you believe ACT Greens and Australian Greens to be sufficiently disparate topic areas. I apologise. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and create articles for the state/territory branches of other significant parties As others have said the party is significant at the ACT level and packing all the information about each state/territory branch of a party into the relevant federal article is going to create overlong and confused messes. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note OP has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor. Orderinchaos 01:23, 9 September 2012 (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.