Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Territory Greens


 * 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. It's snowing here and the nom has been blocked as a sock. Jenks24 (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Northern Territory Greens

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Local unrepresented branch of fourth-largest political party in Australia, no other party such as the Australian Labor Party or Liberal Party of Australia has state branch pages. Page should merge to Australian Greens, like the Liberal Party of South Australia redirects to the Liberal Party of Australia. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge The only state level Australian political party related article I've found so far is Australian Labor Party (NSW) which broke away from the main Labor Party, so merge is definitely the solution here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge This particular branch is non-notable due to the absence of elected MPs (a single house and having territorial levels of Senate representation will do that). I disagree with both the OP and Paul that merges should be the norm, however - state branches of most parties are idiosyncratic and, provided the referencing exists, should have articles. Orderinchaos 10:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on consideration of Frickeg's arguments. Orderinchaos 23:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Greens are something of a special case here, in that they formed as individual state parties that were not explicitly affiliated before merging into the Australian Greens (something of a Federation, if you will). As such the NT Greens contested some elections before they were part of the Australian Greens, and were a separate, registered party. This makes them notable. Frickeg (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Frickeg. Timeshift (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Frickeg. As with the Country Liberal Party this is a NT organisation that operates within a national umbrella group.   Djapa Owen 21:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Welshboyau11, it looks like the concensus is against you. When you get used to Australian politics you will find that quite a few state branches of parties are in fact separate to varying degrees from their 'parent' organisations and this situation would be very hard for an outsider to clasify. For example, the WA Nationals are not part of the Coalition but usually work with them (allies?) and the LNP of Queensland are part of the Coalition, but would they be classified under Liberal Party or National Party? I agree with Timrollpickering that we should support the formation/retention of pages for other state/territory branches of other parties. Djapa Owen 00:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above arguments and discussions at other corresponding AfD. Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC).
 * We should generally keep provincial-level parties; see, e.g., Prince Edward Island Green Party. This is also highly useful as a redirect target for Green party candidates whose notability is in question. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and create articles for the state/territory branches of other significant parties Packing all the information about each state/territory branch of a party into the relevant federal article is going to create overlong and confused messes. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I just realised that this discussion was started by a sockpuppet. Seeing as only one person has agreed with their suggestion I feel that we should close the discussion down.   Djapa Owen 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to close As all votes above are Keep, and the OP has been blocked as a sock, can someone please do the formalities? (I voted above, so can't.) Orderinchaos 01:30, 9 September 2012 (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.