Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secular Party of Australia

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 of the debate was No consensus. Stifle 23:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Secular Party of Australia

As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable minor Australian party. I was going to nominate the article for speedy deletion, but I think that's stretching the speedy deletion criteria to their limits. Proposed deletion is a no go because at least someone will probably object to the listing. So here is the AfD reasoning ...

The party appears to get only 61 google hits, but not counting repeated hits the party only gets 21 google hits, many of which are either wikipedia-related or blogs. It cannot have participated in any major elections because of its age, but I could only find one minor media mention, where it appeared to conduct a single survey. The party is far from notable now, and appears not to have made an impact on the Australian political scene. I sympathise with many of its views, but I believe it does not deserve a wikipedia article ... yet. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that advertisements for the party's policies appeared in Prime Time last year offers it some significance to escape deletion [1] Lefty on campus 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC).
• Keep. I have recently been asked to support this party and I do not. While I support its views, I think these have to be worked through with the larger parties. I do not have an axe to grind here. This is a very new Party. The article is clear and concise. Lets give it a chance. If the Party turns out to be a dud, then we can delete it later. Meanwhile, some people might want to learn something about it and this article does that. I suspect it will get more Google hits as the year progresses but whether it will grow as a Party I do not know. It might well be a notable Party by the end of the year. Why waste the effort that someone has put into this article? --Bduke 11:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

* delete it now and restart it later if it turns out not to be a dud. --Isolani 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn now, and since Wikipedia is not a wait and see how it turns out kinda place. Eivind 11:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Appears to be very new tiny party. Not every group of people who label themselves a party is automatically notable. Wikipedia shouldn't have articles just in case the subject becomes notable. Weregerbil 12:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. At least for now, it is nn. I was able to find one mention of the party in an editorial in the Australian:"Last year, Sydney activist John Goldbaum paid for a series of TV commercials on the theme Keep Religion Out of Politics. Now he's formed the Secular Party of Australia." Perhaps once the movement starts and fields some candidates it will be wiki-worthy. But for now, it's nn. (I think that the principle behind WP:NFT might be extended to this.) Bucketsofg 15:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn party. --Terence Ong 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per above -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 17:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The Party may be small and it may not yet have got traction, but the issues it raises are very notable right now in Australia and readers of WP may well want to know what this Party stands for even if, like me, they chose to follow these issues in other ways. Give it a bit of time. It is usefull information. --Bduke 21:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Australian Electoral Commission maintains a register of Australian political parties - these guys are not on it. [2]. A search of an Australian and New Zealand database came up with nothing about this party at all. To my knowledge, these guys have not stood candidates for anything. This article gives no evidence of activity other than outlining the number of Australians who don't have any religious beliefs. These guys are unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 00:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now --Khoikhoi 02:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While I definitely do not support this party or its aims, the party's website is substantive, serious and well organized; and while not so far ackowledged by the AEC, the party is recognized by the Parliamentary Library of the Australian Parliament in their list of Political Parties and Organisations. --SilverWings 04:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. michael ^talk 05:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Two letters? That's all you've got to offer? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I could write an entire article on why I'm opposed but I think 'nn' ( = non notable) says it all. michael ^talk 02:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, recognised by the Parliamentary Library along with other presumably notable political parties. - Randwicked Alex B 12:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Capitalistroadster's reasoning is powerful, as always. I wish them all luck, and look forward to seeing an article on them here once they register and field some candidates. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's good enough for the Australian Parliamentary Library, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. --Ishel99 06:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that active political parties are inherently notable. Xtra 08:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. What is the process of starting a political party in Australia? Do you need some number of signatures or members? Or can anyone just declare "I'm a party", or just file some paperwork? How many members does this party have? All I can find with google is four people who have a web site; very little media coverage. Weregerbil 11:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To become registered I think you need 500 signatures. Xtra 11:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I vote to keep because a politicial party is as much a state of mind as it is a legal entity. In Australia, in order to become a political party recognised under law, you have to jump through many hoops but that even if not recognised by law that doesn't make them any less of a political party under a democracy. Anyone can set up a party, there is just a system of registration available to those who wish to seek it. If they do, they get benefits like money for election funding and their party name can be printed along side their candidates name. Are they notable enough ? That's where Xtra's point comes in probably, they may be a very lame wing of the Humanist Society in NSW but they are probably inherently notable. --2006BC 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to me that if you are not registered as a political party at the AEC then non-notability applies. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That is a pretty poor rationale. Xtra 04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Your rationale/criteria above ... that active political parties are inherently notable is slightly different from mine. So what. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The Democratic Labor Party is battling to keep its registration. If they lose registration, they'd still be notable I reckon. Registration just means you've got 500 people to sign a form and agree to be members. --2006BC 08:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an actually existing political party should be included.--Soman 13:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The more complete Wikipedia's information is, the better. An actually existing political party should be included. --Sumthingweird 17:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In my eyes, until it has registered with the AEC it is not a political party. At best, they are a lobby group. Besides that, this article does not seek to discuss the party in any substantive terms and seems, rather, to focus on secularism in Australia - which may be a better place to continue its themes.--cj | talk 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for political parties. Sumthingweird says "The more complete Wikipedia's information is, the better"... but we don't have any actual information here, because the only source is the party's website, which is unreliable. Political parties are emphatically not inherently notable, they're just groups of people who said 'yeah, we're a political party' and maybe paid a few registration fees. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- mmeinhart 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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.