Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Coast Queensland Branch Pauline Hanson's One Nation New South Wales Division


 * 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 Delete. A close one, but consensus seems to be that this is not notable enough for a standalone article. However, it was a close call between deletion and relisting (or closing as no consensus), so the poor article quality swung it. I have no objections to recreation at any time if a better article explaining why this branch is notable is written. kingboyk 11:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

East Coast Queensland Branch Pauline Hanson's One Nation New South Wales Division
POV fork. In itself this organisation is not notable. Delete and redirect to Pauline Hanson's One Nation RicD o d 13:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody on Earth will search for that title, Delete no real need for redirect. -- E ivindt@c 14:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete . Comment.This article has a number of problems. Firstly, it has verifiability problems given that the sources consist of minutes of the Branch meetings and no sources outside One Nation are cited. Secondly, notability given that individual branches of political parties are generally not notable. Thirdly, this appears to have problems with WP:NPOV given that it is written and authorised by a party official. Lastly, it may well be a copyvio. No redirect as noone would look for One Nation under that name. Capitalistroadster 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see A. Y. Artos's comments below. Delete vote changed. If it is more substantial than a branch and there is verifiable evidence for it such as Electoral Commission registration or some independent verification such as third party media reports then it might be worth keeping and renaming.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't think it should be redirected to Pauline Hanson's One Nation which we say ceased t exist from 2005. It seems to be new as it claims to have been formed in Ipswich Queensland on the 11th of April 2005.  Needs to be verified as registered.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename: From the electoral commission site: "Application by Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division) to change its registered Party Name and Party Abbreviation" was refused June 2005. There is however One Nation Queensland Division which was registered on 22 April 2005.  This is a separate party to Pauline Hanson's One Nation.  Article should be kept and renamed.  I think, ironically, it is not clear if One Nation is indeed one national party or a series of separate state entities.  For example, if you look at those who objected to the renaming of the NSW branch you will find it is their One Nation colleagues in WA who did not want any confusion.  Accordingly I support keeping a state branch article - this is not quite the same as an individual branch as per comments by User:Capitalistroadster.  I agree it may well be a copyvio but I did not find evidence of that when I searched.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I might be confused and it might be a Queensland branch of Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division) which wasn't allowed to change its name in June and thus a separate entity to the Queensland One Nation mob registered in April last year. Still should be kept on the grounds of notable wierdness.  Next election, state or federal, it will be useful information if wikified, verified and otherwise improved.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. I am inclined to think that the NSW Division might deserve a page as a separately registered and separately operating political party which has had members in parliament. Info on Queensland branches should be included there (or all of it included at Pauline Hanson's One Nation, but I don't see that this branch is significant enough for it's own article. JPD (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How can it be Queensland and New South Wales? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Response: Taking the article at face value - and it does need to be verified - and lining it up against the Australian Electoral Commission's reports of registrations and name change refusals, it would seem that there are now two One Nation parties.
 * This article states: "Was formed in Ipswich Queensland on the 11th of April 2005. The branch was the second in a growing list of New South Wales division branches to form in Queensland. The first Queensland branch of New South wales division of P.H.O.N was Darling Downs/Locyer Branch which was formed in January of the same year."
 * The AEC registered a Qld One Nation Branch on 22 April. In June the AEC refused to change the name of the NSW Branch of Pauline Hanson's One Nation - the objection to the name change coming from the WA Branch of One Nation.  In Qld therefore we have branches of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and One Nation - the former party being only registered in NSW but having branches in Qld.--A Y Arktos\talk 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing worthwhile or salvageable in this article, which seems as though it were copied from an obscure pamphlet. Besides which, in all instances the party is dead or dying; consequently, a "branch" or "division" of it scarcely warrants its own article.--cj | talk 15:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Response:  I am not sure that wishful thinking that something is dead or dying is a reason for deletion. I can find no evidence of a web based copyvio, although I agree it may have been copied.  However,it doesn't appear quite fluent enough for any publication, even a pamphlet with dot points that have been compressed.  Salvaging might take some work and one would have to muster up the enthusiasm and the Reliable sources.--A Y Arktos\talk 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my reason for voting delete. My stance is that a branch or division of PHON does not warrant its own article - not even the major parties have separate articles for state divisions. Ultimately, however, I can see nothing in the article that is worthy of publication.--cj | talk 05:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ambi 02:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the information (while poorly written) is interesting in explaining the machinations of One Nation politics, surely the One Nation article can include a paragraph on the goings on explained here, rather than a whole new article.  --Roisterer 14:11, 20 April 2006 (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.