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.
It only entered in 1 out of 19 counties, so the nationwide part should be taken with many grains of salt. Being a "registered political party" is not in itself notable, you have to achieve something. Punkmorten 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My approach is a pragmatic one. This party is obvioulsy, by any standards, small. However, it did participate in the elections, and readers of wikipedia would encounter the party in the election results, and should be able to obtain info on which is the party that obtained the lowest number of votes. After all, wikipedia is not paper. --Soman20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all parties that have ever stood for a national election should be considered notable enough for Wikipedia, which is not paper. If someone needs objective information about a political party that doens't get much attention in the national press, Wikipedia should be the place. Also, the NRA is notable as the only party with abolishing the Norwegian monarchy as its main cause. 96T21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable by any reasonable standards -Revised to keep per the coverage in Adresseavisen newspaper. I do, believe that an AfD is not the correct place to make policy as 96T seems to want, however. Bigdaddy198121:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make policy? What I said was basically that a party running for a national election should be considered notable. Are there any policies against this? 96T21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAnyone with a bit of money to throw away on lost deposits can stand in a national election and get 94 votes - it doesn't necessarily confer notability. Notability requires multiple, independent sources, without which a verifiable article cannot be written. Google turns up 483 hits, including Wikipedia and its mirrors, but Google News turns up nowt, so it doesn't look promising, but I'll reserve judgement since I don't speak Norwegian, so can't assess the sources Google does come up with. Iain99Balderdash and piffle22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder they're not mentioned on Google News, as it searches through English-language articles only. Obviously, a non-parliamentary Norwegian party is of no interest to the English-language press. (There aren't that many results for Norway's largest party either.) But Wikipedia's interests have always been and will always be more international than those of the English-language press. 96T13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair point - I wasn't sure whether they did non-English language press or not. Obviously I realise that a minor Norwegian party wouldn't expect to get much coverage outside Norway. Iain99Balderdash and piffle14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thought If there are few or no sources, and all that can be said objectively about the party is that it stood in an election and got few votes, then it might be better to merge this and several other of these parties into something like Minor political parties in Norway rather than have numerous perma-stubs. Iain99Balderdash and piffle22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i would urge not to initiate meta-articles on minor parties. It was introduced in swedish wiki, and the result has been a mess, with little encyclopediatic value. What is the problem with having a short article on NRA, if the same lines are copied into a meta article anyway? The only difference is that categorizations and interwikis gets messed up if the merge is pushed through. It's important to understand that notability is guideline, intended to safeguard the quality and integrity of wikipedia, rather than an iron law. The notability guideline is intended to weed out spoofs, hoaxes, purely web-based phenomena and bad jokes, not limit spread of encyclopediatic information (WP:PAPER). --Soman23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had to agree with you Balderdash, this party had less then 100 votes in a national election, so it is hardly notable, so I do agree that a minor political party page for Norway may be needed.--JForget00:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all political parties should be considered notable--even one as small as this. Small size does not necessarily correspond to unimportance, and the only way to avoid bias is to include them all, as long as they have a real existence. DGG (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to DGG You're absolutely right that small size doesn't necessarily correspond to unimportance; however, complete lack of coverage in the press or other independent sources probably would, so I suggest that should be the bar, as it is to most subjects. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Iain99Balderdash and piffle14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHere and here are two articles on the party and its leader in the major newspaper Adresseavisen. --96T, 21 September 2007
Keep Generally would agree that any political party that actually stands in elections would be notable as they can be verifiable from the election results. In this particular case the sources added to the article establish notability anyway. Davewild16:53, 21 September 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.