Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Moderate 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. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Moderate Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable political party that ran only two candidates and won a whopping 0.01% of the popular vote. Unable to find any coverage beyond what is already referenced in the article. Article references are far from in-depth. The CBC article, for example, mentions the subject once in a sentence that's just a list of parties. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   01:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   01:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I just can't find extensive coverage in reliable sources - everything I find is a brief mention in a list. I'm willing to be proven wrong here if someone has better search fu than I. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It has the same type of sourcing as Party for People with Special Needs, another minor party that fielded 2 candidates (the minimum required to be a registered party), and is still roughly on par with several of the other articles for minor parties. RA 0808  talkcontribs 14:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For a political party to have an article on Wikipedia, the only notability standard it has to meet is that it's duly registered as a political party that's eligible to run candidates in an election. It doesn't have to win seats, it doesn't have to garner any specific percentage of the popular vote — it merely has to be registered as a political party with the appropriate electoral authority. More referencing than this would certainly be welcomed if at all possible, but no more than this is required. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Bearcat, I don't mean to be contentious, but can you steer me to any consensus about this? It seems a bit troubling that a precedent would bypass reliance on reliable sources. I have a lot of sympathy for small political parties, but I have a hard time supporting the existence of an article that that doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is reliable source coverage in the article already — two articles in major news organizations of record may not be a lot of coverage, but it's not nothing, either. We obviously never grant any article a permanent exemption from ever having to cite a single RS at all, but while some criteria can certainly be passed only by ensuring that an article already contains a GNG-satisfying level of sourcing, there are some others that can be satisfied by the provision of even just one reliable source. (A person who wins an Academy Award, for example, must be kept even if the article is cited to nothing more than a simple list of that year's Academy Award winners, as long as that list is appearing in an RS. And a sitting member of a provincial, state or federal legislature must be kept as long as the article is cited to one reference which verifies that they've actually held or been declared elected to the office they're claimed to have held. It takes more sources than that to make an article good, absolutely — but there are certain specific notability criteria for which it takes just one RS to make an article keepable.) Registered political parties are considered to be in the latter class, because the election(s) that they ran candidates in aren't being properly covered if any political party in that election's results table fails to lead the reader to more information about that political party, and leaves the reader of the article about that election helplessly wondering "how the heck am I supposed to find out what this party stood for or campaigned on?" Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I favor the lowest of barriers for the inclusion of articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology. Simply put, this is the sort of material that should be in any comprehensive encyclopedia worthy of the name. So keep in accordance with the policy of Ignore All Rules (use common sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Uber comment., you suggest, or say, that your level of inclusion is a standard here, but when asked you didn't provide it. If it is true that "For a political party to have an article on Wikipedia, the only notability standard it has to meet is that it's duly registered as a political party that's eligible to run candidates in an election", please show it. Tim's argument seems to lean on that stance as well, though the addition of IAR is very clever (not bad, Tim--and this is not a bad trick to play that trump card in). Nwlaw63 agrees with the nominator, basically seeking deletion because of lack of sourcing. User:RA0808, unfortunately, does not present much of an argument and it is countered quickly with a WP:OTHERSTUFF or whatever the acronym is here. If I were the closing admin here (I understand why it was relisted, not closed!) I would lean toward delete because a. the "lack of sourcing" argument is not efficiently countered; b. the "but other articles are like this" argument does not hold up; and c. Bearcat has not pointed to a kind of consensus/standard for political parties. The funny thing is, the moment Bearcat does that, OTHERSTUFF does acquire a kind of validity. Of all the 'keep arguments, Tim's IAR is the strongest. Or, in other words, dear editors, you have some more work to do here. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to List of political parties in Ontario - the coverage from reliable sources is not significant coverage and, unlike Academy-award-winners, lack of any reason to assume that such sources almost certainly exist. I take issue with 's assertion that "the only notability standard it has to meet is that it's duly registered as a political party that's eligible to run candidates in an election."  In some countries or political sub-divisions you can form a political party with little more than a filing fee, a statement about what your party is about, and a petition signed by a relatively small number of people.  Bearcat's claim, if true, would open the project up to abuse by small parties seeking publicity.  Having said this, I have no objection to moving this to Draft:- or User:-space if someone needs time to track down additional reliable sources to see if, either individually or in combination, the topic has received significant coverage from them.  If this closes as Redirect I have no objection to keeping the page history.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Following up on Bearcat's assertion about what makes a political party "wiki-notable": The process for registering as a political party in Ontario seems almost trivial - you just have to find two people willing to run under the party banner, or find 1000 Ontario citizens willing to sign a petition within a 1-year period. I'm wondering how long before we have the Ontario Wikipedian's Party - the party that anyone can be a candidate with. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Active political party which is notable enough for an article, is referenced, etc. There's no requirement for a political party's candidate or candidates to win an election for it to have an article. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2015 (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.