Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Democratic Republican 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian Democratic Republican Party
Completing a nomination. See the talk page of the article for rationale. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Might be notable in the future but isn't yet.
 * Delete - not really notable and verifiable. Would've been a good CSD-A7 candidate first up. --User:Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to have been written by the person trying to found the party. Until the party exists in more than name should be deleted as non notable and unverifiable. Davewild 15:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Davewild & article Talk page. ENeville 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. An unregistered Australian political party with no parliamentary representatives and no media coverage see Google News
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 05:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, support the ideas behind this party, but not notable enough yet. Lankiveil 07:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete, per nom. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.  Perhaps when they are a registered party and have ran in elections we could revisit it.  --Roisterer 19:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a prospectus for a possible future party, and is therefore just advertising. --Grahamec 01:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (regrettably) I must concur with this debate. Although I'm the original page author I find that the above comments are logical and irrefutable. Based on above objections I propose only reinstating the page at a future point in time where the following are all met: a) content is verifiable, b) party is officially registered with Australian Electoral commission, c) there is some degree of media coverage, d) have contested an election. All up 'notable'. I thank you all for your time and appreciate your comments. Regards, Miles Gillham 10:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (regrettably) I must concur with this debate. Although I'm the original page author I find that the above comments are logical and irrefutable. Based on above objections I propose only reinstating the page at a future point in time where the following are all met: a) content is verifiable, b) party is officially registered with Australian Electoral commission, c) there is some degree of media coverage, d) have contested an election. All up 'notable'. I thank you all for your time and appreciate your comments. Regards, Miles Gillham 10:35, 17 October 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.