Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danig Party of 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 delete, no prejudice against recreation of the situation changes--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Danig Party of Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. As a general rule, we've always held that notability goes with registration, and that registered parties have articles when their preferences matter very significantly is a pretty fundamental reason why our coverage of Australian politics is good. I am really reluctant to undermine this because I don't want to set a precedent, but this party is the extremely rare case of a registered party that has absolutely no claim to notability: the Australian politics WikiProject couldn't even work out who the heck they are. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would ask any delete voters to not prejudice against recreation if they do, because this is a really unusual case and it's bound to get sources eventually as they all do - it just shouldn't have been created at this stage given the utter lack of them now. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 19:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 19:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete- this is a textbook case of why "automatic notability" is a terrible concept. There is literally nothing to be said about this party except that it (probably) exists. There is not the slightest indication of what its policies are. I can't even find the party's own website, assuming it has one. Most of the article's contents are about Australian requirements for party registration. Per Drover's Wife, I have no objection to recreating this article if some proper sources ever come into existence. Reyk  YO!  07:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Reyk, and also without prejudice towards recreating the article if references become available. I also searched for references concerning this party, or even someone called "Danig" active in South Australian politics, and came up with nothing. It's certainly very unusual for a modern political party to have zero internet presence, but we can't justify having an article on it at this time. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed with Reyk, automatic notability for registered political parties is a bad idea, and here is your reason why. There's nothing there to build an article on this group, and we should hold off the temptation to create articles until there is.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC).
 * delete fails WP:ORG. padding with irrelevant text about postcode it is registered in and minimum requirements to register a party just shows how non notable this is. LibStar (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2015 (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.