Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Political Power 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   no consensus.  Kyle  1278  01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

People&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

People's Political Power is another microparty. In this particular instance, the party only nominated two candidates, who received less than 200 votes between them. The party's press coverage is negligible at best, but sorting it out from other uses of the phrase border on impossible (the phrase "People's Political Power" has been used by a number of regimes over the years). In short, though, it's a non-notable party with a minimal electoral showing in a lone election. Tyrenon (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: People's Political Power is another microparty, but it is a microparty that is officially registered by Elections Canada, and is therefore listed as a party on Elections Canada's list of parties, its candidates are identified as representing the party on ballot during the election, and it is eligible to issue tax receipts for donations. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no need to delete this article. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting an article on an officially registered political party. Ground Zero | t 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly disagree with simple registration as a standard. Were the standards in Canada what they were back in the early 90s (where you had to run 50 candidates to retain registration), I would agree.  However, the standards being what they are (and being comparatively close to the British 50 quid and 10 signatures) I don't see simple registration as being quite enough.  Also, while Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information.Tyrenon (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I completely agree with Ground Zero | t What Wikipedia is not makes scene, no reason for this article to be deleted. -- Kyle  1278  14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ground Zero. The reason simple registration should be sufficient is that we're not doing our job as an encyclopedia if the article on the election in which the party ran candidates can't link to any form of explanation of what each and every party that ran candidates in that election is. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Clearly notable as a Registered Political Party in Canada. Varbas (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This account has been blocked as a sock of a banned user - doesn't get to vote anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no indication that registration requirements are high enough to show notability. The only coverage I could find is this and this. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete There isn't any significant reliable sources on it, just the fact that it is has been registered. 189 people voting for the party really signifies its non-notability: there is barely any followers, the party has no power, so there is no reason for this article being here. Tavix | Talk  01:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because not covered by secondary sources. The party's own site and government election sites are primary sources.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Info on the party could be given in one sentence in the article on the election.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2009 (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.