Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Australia 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. The consensus of the editors participating in this discussion is that this article should be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Western Australia Party

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable political party, they have no representatives and the sources are all routine coverage of election results and confer no notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep currently registered party which had a member of WA parliament in 2020-2021 Charles Smith. --Scott Davis Talk 03:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Being registered is irrelevant for notability and having a former member of parliament doesn't infer notability to the party (I'd note that member was a defector from One Nation so the party didn't even win the seat with him, they were gifted it by the member). Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a notability guideline for political parties in Australia? What is missing from this party? It has been registered and fielded candidates for multiple elections in two jurisdictions (Commonwealth and WA), has had a member of parliament. Another pre-election article is from September this year before the 2022 North West Central state by-election. --Scott Davis Talk 05:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no political party specific notability guideline. Only individual members gain defacto notability upon election to a state or higher electoral body. Political parties are NCORP, which is essentially rehashes GNG apart from statements that that there is no inherent or inherited notability from notable individuals who are part of the org. To answer the question, what is missing, significant coverage from multiple, reliable and independent sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no community consensus to apply WP:NCORP in general to political parties. WP:NONPROFIT is far more appropriate. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:NONPROFIT as well, as there's no national or international scope and still fails GNG, with NONPROFIT requiring both. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only coverage I can find is either routine or brief coverage under the context of "minor parties" as a whole. No evidence that this party is in itself notable. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Scott Davis. Deus et lex (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Longtime registered party, has had MP, quite a bit of coverage of their eccentricities over a few years now. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sigcov e.g. https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/retired-judge-masterminds-new-political-party-to-fight-federal-election-over-was-gst-share-ng-b88635102z. ITBF (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Drovers Wife, and Scott Davis.JarrahTree 11:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – Party has received (and continues to receive) a pretty steady stream of significant coverage. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 11:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep coverage seems more than enough to justify its article. BogLogs (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. I've expanded the article and added some RSs, which combined with JarrahTree's additions, is ample to satisfy GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * While I applaud improving the article, I still see no significant coverage of the party, and my reason had nothing to do with the quality of the article (I am of the opinion that, barring patent nonsense, the quality of an article is irrelevant to the notability of a topic). Out of the 16 citations, the majority of them are irrelevant to notability (eg, election result listings or party registrations) and the rest are insignificant minor coverage of routine election information or are about a person who happens to be involved with the party (insignificant coverage for the party itself). I would suggest that if this article is deleted that most of the information could be merged into personal pages for those who have notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep NEXIST, meets the GNG.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep meets GNG Bruxton (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2022 (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.