Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Justice Party

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Justice Party

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that political party has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's multiple issues with this article, the most critical being failing notability per the nomination. I can't see any coverage of this upcoming party, and there is not a single citation offered by its creator. The list of policies reads like WP:NOTPROMO, and the link in the infobox to the supposed 'youth wing' of the party links to a fictional comic book. I'm unsure if this is a genuine article or a hoax, but either way it should be deleted. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Only source I can found is their facebook group and page should I put it in there. will that clear this debate. Torygreen84 (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Torygreen84: No, their own facebook page is not a reliable source to establish notability. Please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On The list of policies reads like WP:NOTPROMO do you read the other party's ether you don't or your bias because Australian Greens, Katter's Australian Party, Jacqui Lambie Network Family First Party Liberal Democratic Party and many more have a list of policies. does that read to you like a WP:NOTPROMO. Torygreen84 (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' Liberty Australia is an other page that just has one source from themselves and its not deleted. Why?? Torygreen84 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just nominated. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. Frickeg (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Super-obvious one. Violates WP:CRYSTAL, amongst all the other things. No sources to speak of. Frickeg (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Negligible independent coverage to date. To be launched July 2017. TOOSOON I think. Aoziwe (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it reaches a level of notability. The bar for notability of political parties in Australia is slightly above "Registered for elections in at least one jurisdiction". I say "slightly above" as we have also deleted one article for a registered party where the only sources were its registration and Facebook. I'm happy to welcome the article back once the party is registered. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at their website about page and found no notable achievements. [1]. Appears to be a party that has not achieved notability - especially in light of other editor AfD comments.Knox490 (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ORG is not met Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where do I even begin? WP:TNT, WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:HAMMER are good places to start, I guess. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Delete per WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice against recreation of article should the Party attract adequate sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 20 April 2017 (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.