Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Christian Vote


 * 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. -Docg 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Operation Christian Vote

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Minor political party with the leader not even having an article. There are no references and no sources to show its notability Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, did you make any attempt to find some sources before nominating? I found several in a matter of a couple of seconds. I'll add a few of them into the article right now. Mathmo Talk 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources seam to be coverage that any party would receive if they decided to go for election. Quite simply, just the number of votes they recieved, the others cannot be classed as reliable. Anyway, 699 Ghits does not seam to make the party notable. So in answer to your qustion yes I did attempt to find sources Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm glad to hear you did at least try. Don't worry I wasn't accusing you of putting it up for deletion with completely no thought whatsoever. Just was asking to check, because it does disturb me the number of times I seem to see this happen. And it is wise to discourage it when you see it. Now onto the more important stuff of the article that is under discussion....  this is not the same coverage as "any party would receive if they decided to go for election." Many parties get next to no media coverage other than the noting of the results when the listing comes out afterwards. However this party clearly has been the subject of numerous media coverage beyond that. Mathmo Talk 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but I still don't see how any of the references make them notalbe Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They make the party notable because the sources exist. To quote from WP:N: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. Mathmo Talk 00:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do understand the references you added, but they seam trivial to me. The references seam to just give a mention to Operation Christian Vote rather than Operation Christian Vote being the major subject of the article Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree that they were not the major subject of some of those articles. However... the more important thing to point out is that you said: "the major subject of the article" but WP:N says "the subject of". Notice the difference? There is no major in WP:N, so instead you need to ask yourself was it one of the subjects of the article? Of which the answer is yes. Mathmo Talk 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that comes down to interpretation of policy and what actually the term subject means - in my eyes, the article should be about them Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider the possibility that a reference can be about more than one subject, are you going to say the reference can only be used as a reference for one of the subjects and none of the others? Mathmo Talk 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a minor but sufficiently notable party. Warofdreams talk 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - any political party contesting an election is notable. -- Whpq 22:02, 14 February 2007 (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.