Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Serious 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 speedy keep per WP:SK. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Deadly Serious Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable joke party. JDDJS (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm kind of at a loss as to why you think joke parties are inherently non-notable, but anyway. This one was actually a joke party, but that's no reason to delete it. It was registered with the Australian Electoral Commission and contested multiple elections, which is the threshold we have generally used at WP:AUP to determine notability (although we have only generally required one election). A quick Trove search reveals plenty of coverage. Frickeg (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * KeepThe party seems to have filed candidates in multiple elections, which speaks to its notability. I’ve also managed to find several sources, including a brief mention by the Australia Election Committee (which proves this party is not a hoax), mention by The Australian  and mentions in books such as “Australia: The State of Democracy” (available in Google Books). Statistics about the party have been kept in relation to wider elections, as evident by this link . Overall, this just strikes me as a very minor party that nonetheless fielded candidates, won some votes and got some coverage. I don’t see any reason for deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep JDDJS seems to be claiming that even for a joke party the DSP was not notable. But that's just not true.  It got as much notice from secondary sources as any such party ever gets &mdash; they're never the heavy focus of election coverage, but they get mentioned as part of the lighter side of the campaign.  The DSP was certainly mentioned by each newspaper at least several times per election.  That makes it inherently notable.  If we can't come up with the exact citations, it would be because newspaper archives from that period aren't easily accessible.  But I remember reading the coverage at the time.  -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am taking a break. Any page that I nominated for deletion recently that does not have any delete votes and at least one keep vote can be closed as nomination withdrawn. JDDJS (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2014 (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.