Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Mandatory Vaccination 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No Mandatory Vaccination Party

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

Non-notable political party with no representation run by non-notable persons. Article sources are all routine coverage of election results and confer no notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Reserving judgement for now, but ever so slightly leaning keep. There is quite a bit of coverage dedicated solely to this party in reliable sources. First few pages of Google show coverage by the Western Australian and Antony Green (highly trusted election analyst in Australia). Per NCORP, there needs to be significant coverage in multiple sources, and there is certainly coverage in quite a few RS. That said, sources are not transferable. Some of the coverage is actually about the election, and so is significant coverage of the election rather than the article subject. I'm interested in the arguments of others before cementing my position. From the editing history, it does look like the article was created, as happens with many small organisations, to establish credibility. The editing history does demonstrate other editors and readers are interested, and the article is not being "controlled" by its creators or supporters of the party who have tried to scrub information or make changes the community have rejected. Given it seems important, in the public interest, and there is some significant coverage out there, leaning keep. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment regarding coverage being of the election itself rather than the party. Eg the Antony Green article is not significant coverage of the party, it's significant coverage of the mechanism of the election. Out of the 8 sources listed, 6 are routine coverage or irrelevant to notability (or a dead link), and the other two are basically the same article rewritten over two days regarding them being pranked by schoolkids. I don't think that establishes notability. The article page states that due to that prank they weren't allowed to be listed as a party in the Federal election where they came in dead last place in WA with just 900 votes. Can one short article about a political party failing to have enough support to be a political party be significant coverage? I think not. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. While some of the coverage is about the election specifically, I think articles like this show that the party itself is a notable topic. The fact that people are "trolling" the party and that this is newsworthy shows notability imo. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite a lot of media coverage of this party, including (but by no means limited to) around controversies around group ticket voting. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Drover's Wife. Deus et lex (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Drovers Wife. JarrahTree 07:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG with significant coverage in RSBruxton (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2022 (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.