Talk:The Sex Party

Note re WP:COI (conflict of interest guidelines)

To party members who may wish to edit the article: please see WP:COI regarding conflict-of-interest concerning members of organizations editing articles about those organizations. this is a general comment/warning being placed on all BC political party pages because of problems with some articles...If you are a member of this party you should not be editing this article!!.Skookum1 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Ok guys, I'm not sure what's going on here, I don't think I can nominate this article for deletion because I'm not an admin. I'm thinking seriuos notability errors here, I mean I just spent time pouring over BC election stats, I don't think this party was even included though other very fringe parties including the communist party were. I feel this article should be deleted. I mean even the article admits the party is unnotable. They ran 3 candidates in BC's 79 seats, that's not even 4% of the seats. TotallyTempo 04:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It was included but as you can see 0.02% of the vote. Now I'm not trying to be bias, I'm just saying, that is a pretty fringe party.

Right

this political party is very very marginal, and as such I think it fails notability criteria. TotallyTempo 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate an article for deletion. Doing so permits a full discussion of whether the article should be retained. Using the prod process is a way of circumventing the AfD only in extreme cases, e.g., where someone creates an article about a high school teacher, or their dog. I have removed the prod tag because I believe that this is exactly the sort of article that should be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no need to restrict it to only the biggest political parties, for example. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about minor political parties. This article is well-written and is more than just a stub. Be aware that "non-notability" has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community as a reason for deletion, although many deletionists continue to use it to justify their nominations. Go ahead and nominate for deletion if you want. I will cast my vote against. Ground Zero | t 20:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anywhoo

It looks like we're going to keep this damn thing, anyhow shouldn't we remove the link to the business on the article, I mean I don't get to put my business on wikipedia, and it is providing free advertising. TotallyTempo 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• There are lots of links to businesses provided on Wikipedia. The article does not in any recommend or promote the business. If there were a Wikipedia article on the business, it would be more appropriate to link to the article, but there isn't, so an external link does not seem unreasonable. I don't think the link violates any Wikipedia policy, but nor do I think much is lost (or gained) by deleting the link. Ground Zero | t 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go against you on this one, I mean LOTS of polticians have businesses either during or before there tenure that do not get included in their articles. Besides you even have the company promotional material in the article, "An upscale erotic store". I really feel that this should be removed. I understand why certain businesses are on wikipedia such as I don't know, maybe Caterpillar or ExxonMobil or Nokia or something but this business is not in league with them. TotallyTempo 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, okay. I see your point. I have deleted the links and NPOV'd the description of Ince's biz. If someone were to write verifiable NPOV articles about those businesses, however, I would defend their presence on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just about subjects you'd find in Encyclopaedia Britannica -- there is room here for article about less well-known topics. If we restricted it to only the "big" topics that other encyclopedias cover, what would be the need for WP? And besides with over 1.5 million articles, that horse left the barn 1.3 million articles ago. Ground Zero | t 03:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Right, I understand that, I know wikipedia is much larger than a normal encyclopedia, I just felt that it would be unfair to allow this guy to promote his biz whilst others are banned from such things. I won't nominate the BC patriot party for deletion since the outcome will probably be the same. Anyways thanks for your help, and informing me that notability is not a real policy, I think a lot of people don't know that. TotallyTempo 05:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First sex party in the world?

In fact, the Czech Republic's Nezávislá erotická iniciativa (Independent Erotic Movement) was registered already in early 1990s. It changed its name and its piolitics since then, but it was here much earlier.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partito_dell'Amore -- Italy, 1991 151.51.146.178 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Sex Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thesexparty.ca/about-us/platform-provincial
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesexparty.ca/about-us/platform-federal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)