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, no need to wait five days given overwhelming consensus below. NawlinWiki 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of British Columbia[edit]

Communist Party of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Non-notable provincial party in the province of British Columbia. In the 2005 provincial elections, it achieved a whopping 0.01% of the total popular vote. Because of this, there is nothing notable about the party. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you checked all the results going back to 1945 or prior, or if doing badly in one election makes an article deleteable- in which case we should delete Progressive Conservative Party of Canada for winning 2 seats in 1993. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jbgohlke 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)I think it's existence makes it more than "notable".[reply]

• Keep. There are 47 pages in Category Provincial political parties in British Columbia and there is no reason to make an example of this article. --Davidbober 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep branch of the notable Communist Party of Canada. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if it is currently a micro party, it has historical significance. Bucketsofg 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep During its heyday, it was fielding candidates in a third of all the ridings. Political parties that maintain a tangible presence over the course of several decades are definitely notable. Caknuck 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada won no votes at all in the last federal election. Should this article be deleted too? Ground Zero | t 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep invalid deletion rationale.--Jersey Devil 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very important part of Canadian working class history. --Mista-X 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ground Zero. --GreenJoe 05:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a properly registered political party in any jurisdiction is notable enough, regardless of their electoral performance. --Canley 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on historical lineage[1], not for being "properly registered" which has low barriers to entry[2]. Bwithh
• Keep. Disturbing to see this AfD, and the recent one for the Sex Party, being based on popularity. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, despite being a minor party, it history is quite significant, definitely notable. A number of parties have received few votes in recent years, and are they all supposed to get deleted? Terence Ong 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bwithh. Resolute 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a registered political party. Their performance in an election is not relevant. Notability is not the same as popularity or fame. -- Whpq 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm sure this party wishes it could this kind of support at the ballot box. Given the long-term history of this party, even if it were de-listed as an official political party I would would still say it is encyclopedic. The only difference is that it would then be an article on the political history of British Columbia, which is still encyclopedic. Agent 86 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not successful but notable ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appropriate for encyclopedic content. Philippe Beaudette 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There is no reason to delete it. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - established political party with a long history and no shortage of third-party references. —Psychonaut 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There might be nothing notable about their individual candidates, but any officially incorporated political party that has run candidates in any election is fully entitled to an article about the party. Bearcat 01:43, 16 January 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.