Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of grassroots political engagement groups in 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LivelyRatification (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

List of grassroots political engagement groups in Australia

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

This article seems unnecessary to me. The title seems a bit potentially POV (who's to say these groups are grassroots?) and most of the "list" sources (when there are sources at all) seem to be primary sources citing random websites from these organisations. I feel this article might be better off either being deleted or refocused to be an article on the Voices movement, since the list of all the groups doesn't seem needed. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Strong oppose keep I am open to changing the title, that was the best I could come up with when creating the page. Possibly "Voices" movement in Australia? However the page itself is definitely worthy of a page.
 * The group is attracting major press, and is causing the ruling Liberal party a lot of problems politically
 * Many of the groups would be worthy of a page in their own right, and as an amalgam they are a major force in politics today, possibly behind only Labor, Liberal and Greens
 * These groups have provided 4 MPs to parliament in 3 seats, and there is the potential for many more
 * There is even more press that I was going to include, which is the attention that the Liberal party is giving these groups in trying to discredit them
 * Again I am open to suggestions as to how to improve the page, but this is as worthy for a page as any minor party Playlet (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern here is the list. In what way are all these various "Voices" movements connected? A lot of these "movements" seem to be nothing more than websites and Facebook pages, if they even end up running or endorsing candidates at all. Certainly a number of these groups could be independently notable, Voices for Indi has its own article, but not all of them are created equal, and the title is so broad that it could potentially incorporate a number of other groups.


 * I don't really disagree with any of your points, but I think this article would be better without the list aspect, hence why I nominated the article for deletion - certainly, from what I know, there has been a connection drawn between the Voices movements' success in Indi and Warringah and the rise of copycat groups in other predominately Liberal electorates, but I think the article should focus less on listing them all and simply noting some of the most notable. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We are agreed then. The groups are not really connected, but it is part of a broader movement that is definitely notable, but the page should probably be more focused on the movement rather than as a list. There is also room for more pages for individual groups such as Warringah, North Sydney, Goldstein and others, but this does not take away the need for the main page that focuses on the movement as a whole. I will look in to fixing this and perhaps starting some of those other pages for individual groups.Playlet (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment These would probably best be described as non-aligned or non-party electoral lobbying groups. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Keep. It's a movement that started with unseating a former prime minister and is getting a decent amount of coverage in the Australian media. Better sources would be a good start for improving it. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If this movement does crystallise into a registered party, and this party gets sufficient attention to meet notability guidelines, then the current list might serve as a starting point for an article about the new party. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment apologies for being pedantic, but the normal practice at AfD is to use "keep" or "delete" (in bold) when one !votes; oppose can be ambiguous (eg are you opposed to the article or the nomination for deletion?).   It's relatively clear (I believe!) you are all expressing a view for keep, but nevertheless so as to avoid any confusion perhaps amend your inputs using strikethrough . See WP:AFDFORMAT for full details. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a humble note of acknowledgement, some of you have been at this longer than me, perhaps this is just your preferred way of doing things and don't allow my comment to detract from that. With respect, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder – I probably shouldn't be !voting at nearly midnight! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The whole point of the movement is not to be a political party, but rather a network of grassroots organisations. It does not fit the paradigm of politics as it has been done in Australia until now, but the movement has definitely had successes and is getting quite a lot of press (more than many minor parties)Playlet (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that's what I thought initially, but there was the mention of a move to register a party – which I take to be a compromise to improve recognition and support for the movement at a senate election. I think I am leaning towards a prose article being more valuable than a list, but I'm hesitant to delete any election-related article when the next election could be called any minute now. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have been thinking of filling in out a bit more, so that the list is only part of a larger article. There is now information about the Liberal attacks on the groups and their funders and some other bits. My understanding was there was a group who wanted to be a roof party over the top of all the groups, but the groups rejected that model to remain independent. Playlet (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the page and added a lot of information so that it is now more an article than a list. The only question is what the new title should be? Possibly 'Voices movement' or 'Voices groups in Australia'. What would you suggest? Playlet (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * keep I have been away from wikipedia editing for several years, and AfD discussions. There is a movement here, with noteable mainstream media coverage which primarily focuses on just a small selection of groups in this movement. I actually think providing a list of 'Voice of' groups gives essential value to this article, and most of these have been adequately cited, although many of these groups in themselves are not yet noteable. I am Open to changing the title to more accurately reflect the content. Takver (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The growth in independents (McGowan, Haines, Steggall) winning previously considered "safe" seats is notable. However I agree with the nominator that the "grassroots" title is inappropriate. I endorse the new title "Voices groups in Australia" as a much better alternative. Chrisclear (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now that  has moved the list to the Voices groups in Australia article, are you happy for me to CLOSE this discussion or do you want an uninvolved editor to close it? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am happy for this to be closed. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * just realised I probably shouldn't close this as I !voted above – best would be for you to withdraw your nomination. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 00:29, 3 December 2021 (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.