Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian People's 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 of the debate was Keep. Enochlau 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Australian People's Party
Verifiability issues. I can find nothing to confirm the claims of the article on Google, newsgroups or news searches... best I can find is that it's a spoof of the Labor Party in a movie by Ted Emery. But even then... this isn't a current political party in any way, as far as I can tell. It also may have been an actual political party inthe 1920s but that's not what this article is talking about. --W.marsh 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  --W.marsh 21:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete. Doesn't look notable to me. --Martyman- (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC) I change my vote to keep due to article being re-written about a real subject. --Martyman- (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as A1 very short article. The Australian Electoral Commission keeps a register of Australian political parties for various reasons as keeping records of significant donations, listing candidates on ballot papers and so forth. The Australian People's Party isn't registered on that list see . Could possibly be rewritten about 1920's party. Might leave a message for Adam Carr. Capitalistroadster 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Adam Carr has now responded saying that a party of that name contested the West Australian elections in 1996 but are no longer active in that state. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But that is not what the article is refering to either. --Martyman- (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sleuthing. I'm not opposed to keeping a rewritten article about either that or the 1920s party, but the party the article refers to right now seems to be unverifiable.  As is its founder, "Oscar Schlamovitch" which sounds quite made up. --W.marsh 02:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sleuthing. I'm not opposed to keeping a rewritten article about either that or the 1920s party, but the party the article refers to right now seems to be unverifiable.  As is its founder, "Oscar Schlamovitch" which sounds quite made up. --W.marsh 02:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ambi 04:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have now cleaned up, verified and expanded the article. In my view, there is enough verifiable information on the various party's to warrant a Keep vote. Capitalistroadster 08:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep after User:Capitalistroadster's excellent rewrite. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep great verifiable rewrite, nice job. Jessamyn 15:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominator here... Keep the great rewrite that solved the problem, thanks to User:Capitalistroadster. --W.marsh 15:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Following the fix up by Capitalistroadster, I say we Keep. --Roisterer 04:08, 30 November 2005 (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.