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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 12:30Z

Your Political Party of British Columbia[edit]

This party is not well known and is one without reputable sources. The website link looks as if someone created a page just for fun. There is also minimal information. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiclai06 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 February 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem like a notable party --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally nonnotable; 5 nonwiki ghits. (It got fewer ghits than votes!) YechielMan 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Changing vote to keep based on new information. YechielMan 17:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Keep: wow, over 400 votes!~~ not notable, no coverage. It's possible for a party to deserve an article even with fewer votes (see Reform Party of British Columbia), but that party has a notable history, whereas this one does not. I saw only 3 non-Wikipedia/mirror google hits. --N Shar 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references, including the list of registered political parties in British Columbia, a newspaper interview with the party's leader, and minutes from a City of Coquitlam public town hall meeting including brief comments by the party's leader. I would argue that, when a jurisdiction has a formal registration process for political parties, that any party that is registered should be considered automatically notable, in the same way that any elected member of a national or provincial legislature is automatically notable. --Eastmain 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual candidates may or may not be notable, but this is a registered political party. Notability is not the same as popularity. Agent 86 04:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I agree with Agent 86 but there must be some de minimis threshold for political parties. But until we establish one, I say it stays. -Selket ^Talk 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable enough considering... - Fosnez 07:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until we have a better consensus on which political parties are notable and which aren't. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth noting that eventually a small enough party will fall under WP:NFT. This clearly doesn't --Selket ^Talk 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent 86 & Eastmain. Mathmo ^Talk 08:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has now been cleaned up and referenced so it seems to meet the standards.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent 86 and improvements by Eastmain. -- Black Falcon 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment other "existing" or historical political parties have been deleted from Wikipedia, such as the Rent is too Damn High Party (afd). There are obviously huge differences between the two parties, but the suggestion that the party is notable simply for being a bona fide political party should be scrutinized and applied uniformly throughout Wikipedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agent86 and others, notability need not be confused with popularity. RFerreira 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Sefringle 05:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.