Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's Smallest Political Platform


 * 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 Delete.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 02:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

World's Smallest Political Platform
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article describes a particular political platform referenced by precisely one political party: The Boston Tea Party (political party), itself more-than-likely NN (see below entry). Badger Drink (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: No assertion of notability. It says it was proposed to the LP, but nothing else about its impact. Fails Google Test. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N - has attracted no attention and has WP:V and WP:RS issues to boot. Wikiepdia is not a form for grandstanding by other means. Eusebeus (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Rtphokie (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it exists and is the base for a political party. Monobi (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: existence != notability --Lemmey talk 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; The subject of the article clearly exists. So-called "notability" is substantially undefined, meaningless, and irrelevant.  Verifiable existence is the only legitimate criterion.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I exist. Do I get an article? I can get half a dozen of my friends together, put in the paperwork to register a political party, and post about it on the Internet. We would in fact verifiably exist. Would we get an article? Notability matters, no matter how problematic its definition may be. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? You might even become the next President. Monobi (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because if everything gets an article, the signal-to-noise ratio collapses. It becomes impossible to keep Wikipedia up to any kind of standards whatsoever. Wikipedia would go from being an encyclopedia with daily increasing reputation to a sandbox, a wall where anyone could scrawl whatever information they wished. It would become impossible to determine the importance or significance of any article, and impossible to control content. We would be overrun by vanity pages and by blatantly false information--a big enough problem as it is. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a non-starter. It is absurd to claim an encyclopedia is made by better by removing verifiably true information, as the whole point of an encyclopedia is to include the sum of all human knowledge.  I submit that Wikipedia is not the proper project for you--you have basically admitted as much on your userpage.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is verifiably true that I am, at this very moment, wearing a turquoise golf shirt with white stripes, and a pair of light brown shorts. I could submit a time-stamped photograph proving this. But putting this on Wikipedia would not improve the encyclopedia; it would merely clutter it with utterly irrelevant information. I do not accept the premise that an encyclopedia's purpose is "to include the sum of all human knowledge"; rather, I believe that an encyclopedia's purpose is to include a subset of human knowledge deemed particularly important or interesting. Yes, I realize that Wikipedia is not paper. But that does not change the fact that, should it grow to include too much that is trivial or apocryphal, it would suffer for it. Ironically the articles that would suffer most would be minor but notable articles, ones which, because they fall on the borderline or are not well known, can no longer be policed due to the sheer volume of noise elsewhere. I believe that it is better to do fewer things well than many things poorly--and judging by WP:N, the majority of users agree with me. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2008 (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.