Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023)


 * 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 soft delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

A very inadequate deletion rationale by the nominator. But the only opinion focusing on sources and notability is for Delete. Also a note to article promoter that threatening legal action against an editor or the Wikipedia organization will result in an indefinite block so do not do this again. It was also not appropriate to remove the AFD tag. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Political party has not run any candidates in an election yet, very sparse sourcing Dan Carkner (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment There were |1 attempts to recreate the page of a former party with the same name to be "about" the new party, with the username of the editor matching the founder of the new party. After it was rolled back a user eventually created this new page with minimal sourcing; I cannot say if this creator is affiliated, but the party has not yet run candidates or received substantial coverage in the press. Dan Carkner (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Elections BC show many parties. FYI - a party does not have the have a candidate in order to be a party. They merely have to go through all of the steps required by Elections BC to have an official party. So the claim that the party needs to have a candidate is erroneous and without merit. Hunzana97 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Hunzana97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, that is what is relevant here, not electoral laws. See: Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Dan Carkner (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are arguing to take down a perfectly good page for what can only be seen as political reasons. The NEW party is using a name that was used before.  So what?  It breaks no copyright laws.  It is perfectly acceptable.  On what basis would one object to this page?  It is good information.  And, wiki or not, it not only won't stop the party from having a public website, but erroneous efforts to deplatform the party will only amplify the need for such a party. Hunzana97 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Hunzana97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Again, please go read what they've asked you to. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 03:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics,  and Canada.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This party is NEW party. Please check with Elections BC. The old party did not copyright the name, and did not trademark it either.  The new party carries a similar name, but is a completely different party. Why would anyone even be concerned that this party page exists?   Hunzana97 (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because there is no sourcing that talks about it. Registering a party is as simple as getting names on a list and paying the fee. You'll need way more than that to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll want a full article in the Vancouver newspapers for example before we can consider keeping an article about the group. Lack of sourcing is the issue, not any sort of bias about the group's ideas (on which I have strong opinions, but won't comment as it's not relevant). Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying that if the mainstream media wants to suppress an idea or concept, then simply NOT REPORTING on it will do? If that is the case, then sad for Wikipedia, because it would have the effect of diminishing the site's credibility.  This is not something I'd think the developers of Wikipedia would favor. Hunzana97 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Hunzana97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Or it's not important enough to talk about in the first place? I didn't develop wikipedia and weren't here for karma points. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable party that recently organized protests against gender identities in Canadian schools. A total of six hits in Gnews, one of which is Rebel News, very biased sourced (akin to OAN in the USA). A brief mention of the party being founded here, but it's all about the wave of gender politics protests seen in Canada lately. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a wiki article could be seen as PROMO for the time being, as they attempt to legitimize their beliefs here (not unlike what has been seen in the US recently). Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Their beliefs are already legitimized. Grooming children is a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada and not yet been addressed in court. That is coming.  The party has no issues with alternative lifestyles.  It's none of anyone's business.  But children are fundamentally off limits across multiple racial lines, over and above the criminal code violations. Hunzana97 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Hunzana97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Good thing none of that happens then. Please keep it with a world view, this is an international platform. If you aren't here to discuss the sourcing behind the article, we can't take you seriously in this discussion. Perhaps go read the suggested links above, then keep the rest to yourself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This has also proven helpful to others in the past. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2023 (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.