Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Party of Canada


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Online Party of Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable unregistered party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Online Party of Canada is in fact not yet officially registered but in the process of registration with Elections Canada. However, it is a notable Canadian political "website", as per the news articles and media coverage. Would it be possible to temporarily change its status to "website" (rather than official political party) and then simply revert it back to Federal political party once registration process with Elections Canada is complete? --J2xF (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You still need to prove it is notable, even as a website. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * comment: evidence of notability [National Post](http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/25/marni-soupcoff-what-we-can-learn-from-the-online-party-of-canada/), [CBC news](http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2011/01/31/technology-internet-usage-based-billing.html) DigitalC (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: based on the sources listed in the comment above, this party meets WP:N. DigitalC (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Pirate Party Australia, for example, is notable but not yet registered and thus still meets the political party criteria, right? --J2xF (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – The subject meets WP:N with coverage in such publications as the National Post, the Windsor Star, and Le Journal de Québec; I've added citations for the latter two references. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources already available are enough to meet notability, and here are three more  . These others are of varying quality      , but I think they really help to assess how notable the party has become - frankie (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2011 (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.