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. Merging this somewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland and Labrador First Party[edit]

Newfoundland and Labrador First Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Running in one by-election with those sore results does not make this organization notable. Fails WP:ORG and google test. Delete GreenJoe 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to List of political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador.--TBCΦtalk? 03:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a registered political party in Newfoundland and Labrador (see reference provided in article) founded by a former Member of the House of Assembly. Also, it now passes the primary criterion of the WP:ORG test: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." References have been provided to the Chief Electoral Officer of Newf?Lab, and to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Ground Zero | t 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. This party seems to have just barely scraped the surface of notability in Newfoundland -- 158 G-hits, with the first several being this article and various Wikimirrors, is usually a sure sign of death. However, there has been sourcing to significant media outlets. RGTraynor 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as it does seem to just barely muster its way past the bar for inclusion per WP:ORG. I think a better treatment for this and some other very minor party articles I have run across would be better treated by merging them into some kind of "Minor Parties in X" articles, but since the closing admin is not a slave I have to endorse the keep. Arkyan 15:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --ImpartialCelt 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I read WP:ORG the same way other users have done above and then I think any party that has gotten any votes in an election should be encyclopedic. However, I tend to support Arkyan's idea to have a Minor parties in Canada article. --DorisH 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a registered political party that has been in an election. -- Whpq 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ground Zero notation above. --HJKeats 00:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, sufficiently sources, meets WP:ORG. WP:GOOGLE is an essay- not a policy- not even a guideline. It is internally riddled with cautions and self limiting language. It should not be used to delete the work of other editors.Edivorce 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Registered political parties should be important enough for Wikipedia to cover. Burntsauce 23:30, 16 March 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.