Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian politics in Australia


 * 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 no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 11:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Christian politics in Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is simply a list of links to political parties and aligned organisations that serves no real value as an article in itself, that could not be handled by a category. There is no substantive text, discussion nor evidence or verifiable sources, or evidence of development. The topic already covered at length and more appropriately at the Christianity in Australia article already. Creating editor declined PROD. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not an article in its current form; totally plausible topic for an actual article one day though. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. Not an article in its current form; totally plausible topic for an actual article one day though. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I note that the article creator,, was not informed of this deletion discussion. Anyway, it looks like he or she was in the middle of creating the article. I really dislike deletion tags being slapped on articles that are in the process of being written, so my preference is to wait to allow Torygreen84 time to expand it. StAnselm (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article was PRODed and the creator dePRODed, saying in their edit summary "that's why the wiki community can help" which suggests the editor was reliant on others to continue the article. This AfD is not because the article is incomplete, but because there is no viable reason for it -- Whats new?(talk) 23:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

*Keep Topic is certainly notable and encyclopedic. Article as it stands is unobjectionable except for its brevity, but the list of actual Australian political parties is valid. In effect, it is an article outline awaiting content. I say keep it, since articles that exist often attract content, but creating an article and even gathering that useful-looking ( I don't know much about Aussie politics) list of extinct and extant Christian parties takes the kind of work that often makes me think, this important topic needs an article, but starting one is too daunting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems likely this is a notable topic and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AusLondonder (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article creator has just been blocked for one week, and so will not be able to improve the article until after this AfD would normally close. StAnselm (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  Draftify , as User:The Drover& points out, this is a completely legitimate and potentially interesting topic for an article. Perhaps when User:Torygreen84 returns from their block they can add some flesh to it.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC).
 * As promised, I had some time to dash off a couple of paragraphs of content. Still very embryonic and I welcome improvements (especially for tone and balance as I have strong personal views in this area).  But my original rationale for draftiying is no longer valid and I think we should Keep.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Draftify per User:Lankiveil. StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Very few of the conservative parties are officially Christian - we would need a nuanced discussion describing in what way they're "Christian" (whatever that means). A mere list isn't good enough. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "officially" 3 on the list are not Christian, but all of the listed parties have demonstrably Christian origins and/or agendas that quite openly described as supporting or drawing on "Christian" values. (interpretations of Christian vales may differ.)  That said, I'm not opposed to draftify.  Merely I prefer to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, the topic is better covered in the encompassing article Christianity in Australia and via categories. Still no establishment of why the topic is notable enough for its own topic, or why the aforementioned article can't handle it. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I point out that this article is not just brief, it actually contains no content apart from a restatement of the article title, and a "See Also" section. If we want to get technical, it's probably a valid CSD A3 scenario, although it probably doesn't need that much to get there.  If I have some time this evening I might try and write a couple of sentences to upgrade it from "no content" to "stub" at least.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
 * All you have done is flesh out a topic with mostly unsourced content, which is better covered in the encompassing article Christianity in Australia. You have not established why this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article -- Whats new?(talk) 22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. Upon reconsideration, and as per arguments made by The Drover&#39;s Wife and User:StAnselm.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is a poor article on a notable topic. It may be that the text requires TNT, but at the very least the list of specifically Christian parties is worth having.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2017 (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.