Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Sceptics 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. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Sceptics Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable political/activist group. Despite the name, it is not a registered political party so indistinguishable from any other activist group. Coverage in third party sources is trivial or incidental. Barrylb (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I found an article (though it isn't a major paper) where the party was the main focus of the article, and without meaning to crystal ball, the party is claiming it is near registration at a federal level. Andjam (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I didn't see the article Andjam talks about. As the nominator states, passing mention isn't enough. So far seems not sufficiently notable, not even to merge with articles about climate change skepticism (i.e., in a list of activist groups). What the party claims isn't relevant to its notability. --Abd (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the The Border Watch article. Andjam (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - with the exception of the Border Watch article, the coverage is pretty trivial. If additional references to reliable sources cannot be found, I don't think they're sufficiently notable at this time. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do any of these reliable sources help establish this topic's notability? I don't think they're used by the article currently, but they can be worked in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They would help, sure, but only a little. But I read all those sources and they don't establish notability. None of them are about the party itself, they are passing mentions. Basically an activist does something to get in the news, such as filing a candidacy, then claims to be a member of the party, or the like. Not enough of this for sheer weight to establish notability. The Border Watch article is not enough. This "party" is still not organized as a political party, the candidate running for office is running as an independent. That ought to be a clue. --Abd (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the Australian Goverment's Department of Climate Change is a reliable source (although it probably is), it mentions the Climate Sceptics Party here and discusses their TV commercials here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is actually the weightiest source yet, but it's also problematic. The substance here is that the DCC is responding to a "Climate Skeptics" advertising campaign. Somebody is spending money on climate skepticism in Australia, apparently. And using the name of "Climate Skeptics." I'm an inclusionist, generally, but there is an absence of reliable secondary source here. The DCC is a primary source, showing that the Australian government took the ads seriously enough to respond to CS arguments. What does that mean? If the article exists, this can be in it, presented neutrally (and assuming that the "Climate Skeptics" is shown to be connected with the "Party.") But I don't think it establishes notability much more than an individual having placed such an ad would establish their own notability. There is a possible compromise: redirect and merge with an article on climate skepticism, and give the "party" a one-line mention with reference in that article. Later, if the party becomes more notable, the article could become a stub and then a fuller article, assuming that better sourcing becomes available. --Abd (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One more: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Though I suspect they will make news in the near future and become notable, they are not now. Sole Soul (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Can't find reliable secondary sources about the party.  --Joe Decker (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2010 (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.