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. Rudget _{Contributions} 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senator On-Line[edit]

Senator On-Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable startup party, a quick look around locates no independent references verifying anything other than its existence. Orderinchaos 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They're a new party running candidates for the Senate in just about every state. Having surpassed the requirements for registration with the Australian Electoral Commission should be able to signify notability for our standards, and there's no good reason why we shouldn't have articles on every registered party contesting the election. Rebecca 00:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a real party, state registered, running for elections in a democratic country. Excellent notability. scope_creep 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just being a political party doesnt make it automatically notable. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which determine notability. Twenty Years 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Running for something doesn't make you notable. There are no references or citations in this article that assert notability, other than simply confirming that they have registered candidates for elections. Cogswobbletalk 02:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I suggest this AfD should be revisited after the Australian federal election, 2007 later on this month. If they don't win any positions, delete after the election. Auroranorth (sign) 02:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's virtually no chance they'll win any seats. However, registration of a party is far from a formality - they'd have to have registered a decent number of members, for one, to have got this far. In my book, this makes them inherently notable. Rebecca 03:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a political party does not make you notable. The article fails to assert any sort of notability. It fails notability. Option to re-create in the future, should some reliables turn up. Twenty Years 06:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The party has received some independent media coverage at the Sydney Morning Herald. Their website also claims an article from the Canberra Times, but I couldn't find it on that newspaper's website. --Goobergunch|? 06:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the Canberra Times routinely deletes articles pretty quickly after putting them up - often just a few days. Rebecca 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per Auroranorth, great argument made there. Delete if non-notable after election. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't say to "keep" articles because they might accomplish something notable. If the party wins seats, then a new article can be created. For now, I don't see how this article meets the criteria in WP:N. It should be deleted unless it does. Cogswobbletalk 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Any registered political party running candidates in a federal election is notable in my book. Verifiable at [1] —Moondyne 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:NOT#NEWS. An organisation that has been in existence for a few weeks with 500 members doesn't make it notable. The local RSL clubs in my area have more members than this. If this was a school, it would have been speedy deleted. Assize 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Becasue it is an actual political party that is running candidates in the Australian elections andtherefore there must be an article about this political party. CatonB 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with CatonB - Arguments for or against deletion should be based on wikipedia policy. From what I can tell, this party fails the notability guidelines for organizations WP:ORG. Cogswobbletalk 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have added a couple of references to the article. Party appears to have enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable enough as will most parties who contest national elections. Davewild 09:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This party has received extensive media coverage and I have listed some of it in the article. Besides which I think any party with candidates in the election is notable. Me...™ 12:26, 4 November 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.