Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (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 was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country Party (Australia)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

A very new, minor party, unregistered (and extraordinarily unlikely to achieve registration under the current name). Two independent references cited, one in the ABC and one from The Land (the other is an op-ed from the founder), not really indicative of significant notability (basically the founding of the party, so WP:ONEEVENT). An example of WP:TOOSOON, especially since this party is less than a month old. (Removed PROD.) Frickeg (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I wouldn't have even bothered bringing this one to AfD: Country Party (Australia) is an extremely logical redirect as the former name for many decades of Australia's third-largest party, this party is extremely unlikely to ever be registered under this name, and until such time as this party gains registration they're not notable anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that for some reason the AfD notice is not showing on the page itself. I have no idea why. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might be because I used Twinkle to nominate it, it took a little while. It's showing now. As for AfD, it was a removed PROD, which I should have mentioned in the rationale and will add now. Frickeg (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that any decision here is actually based on accurate information. I note that Frickeg elected not to mention that the party was deemed sufficiently notable to be covered on the front page of The Land (15 Jan 2015 edition) even though Frickeg had been made aware of this. There is also considerably more coverage of the party than indicated above and Frickeg was also aware of this but elected not to present that. There is genuine interest in the party which emerges in comments on the article. One of the articles in the land was shared (from The Land website) 1300 times in a few days, suggesting notability especially given the demographic to which it is relevant, this count doesn't include the number of "on-shares".

The party was considered sufficiently notable for it to be attacked by Barnaby Joyce (deputy PM in waiting) here: http://www.farmonline.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/barnabys-ready-for-country-comp/2720978.aspx

More coverage here: http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/cpa-eyes-federal-election/2721134.aspx

There has been no Country Party in Australia for 40 years. The Nationals made a clear choice to abandon the name as they felt it did not accurately reflect their aspirations. Only a very small proportion of the Australian voter base will have ever voted in an Election where a Country Party had candidates. The criticisms above do not reflect this very considerable expanse in time, or decision to disassociate from the name.

The Country Party is particularly notable in that is has been formed in response to an unfolding rural crisis which is a nationally significant issue. Those suffering the effects of the crisis do not feel appropriately represented in the political process.

The founder is himself notable as the immediate past chairman of Grain Producers Australia (GPA) where he represented the interests of all Australian Grain Growers and his organisation had federal oversight of the research program for GRDC. The founder ensured the orderly ongoing carriage of legislated responsibilities after the financial collapse the predecessor of GPA.

Rlm2802 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the AEC records will show that the National Party of Australia was never known by the name of the "Country Party of Australia". As such contrary to the claims above the wikipedia redirection that is presently in place is invalid.

Jam2409 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Jam2409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom - this is a new and unregistered political group who do not meet our notability criteria. I agree that this would be a sensible redirect to the National Party (as a housekeeping matter only, without implying anything regarding this group or the National Party and their relationship). Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of clear indicators of notability have been provided.

It is sufficiently notable for the Warren Truss (deputy PM) and Barnaby Joyce (Minister for Agriculture and federal cabinet member and next Deputy PM) to engage on the issue.

It is sufficiently notable for it to receive front page coverage in The Land (Australia's leading rural press) yesterday.

It is sufficiently notable for it to generate considerable public comment and sharing.

It is sufficiently notable for to be covered in other rural press.

It is sufficiently notable for the ABC to cover it.

It is sufficiently notable for multiple articles in The Land.

It is notable on the basis that it is a direct response to difficult issues facing the rural sector.

This is a rural issue and certainly notable to those concerned with rural issues.

Please therefore explain the statement that "the notability criteria are not met".

Is it possible that the commenters might not be sufficiently familiar with Australian rural issues to be well placed to perceive the notability. It should be understood that this has arisen because rural people felt their issues had been ignored, consider that the deletion of this article constitute a reinforcement of that propensity to consider rural issues irrelevant.

Redirection to the National Party would fail to recognise that the National Party distanced itself from this name starting 4 decades ago on the basis that it considered it a poor descriptor for the party. Redirecting to the Nationals would therefore be directly contrary to their own clearly telegraphed and longstanding intentions.

Rlm2802 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never bothered to participate in Wikipedia content before, but this is a topic of great interest to me and I am inclined to be sympathetic to Rlm2802's case. Firstly, he is correct that the National Party was never known as the Country Party of Australia and it is a unique party name in Australia at this time. Secondly, rural and regional representation is in itself very notable and precisely why this Party has been covered so extensively in such a short time and why the story is unlikely to die quickly so WPTOOSOON seems irrelevant. Thirdly, the co founder and chairman Pete Mailler is notable in that a google search yields many articles and these reports cover many roles and events which will add notoriety to this event and in many respects enhances the notability of the Party and its launch. Fourth, his concerns about the accuracy of the redirect of Country Party of Australia to the Nationals is not accurate and in my view is not an acceptable reference for the name. Fifth, a quick search shows that the articles referenced by Rlm2802 plus http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/new-political-voice-for-country-voters/2720196.aspx have been in multiple rural publications in multiple states as well as the online content increasing the notability again. I oppose the deletion proposal and depending on the outcome of this discussion will likely recommend that the pre-existing Country Party of Australia page be deleted because it is inaccurate and misleading. Apologies Rlm2802 if you are not male. OlfR (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — OlfR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is obvious. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion of this page.

In addition to the media articles that have already been mentioned, this issue was deemed suitable for the front page of The Land on 16/01/15 (circulation of over 42,000 per week - details here http://www.fairfaxagmedia.com.au/the-land-1025.html).

I question the political impartiality of the individuals recommending this page for deletion or redirection. Drover's Wife for example appears to have authored multiple biographies of LNP politicians which are unconditionally positive.

I would also ask Nick D's to explain the basis is for his accusation of "sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry".

Fridaycat15 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Fridaycat15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The surge in new accounts whose only purpose is to comment on this discussion might have something to do with it. It's rather silly, and the closing admin will simply ignore comments from such accounts. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion OR redirection.

Nick-D, Drover's Wife & Frickeg all object to the name - The Country Party.

It has been suggested that this page should be redirected to the Nationals page due to the name - The Country Party - being associated with the Nationals.

It has also been suggested that this page should be deleted on the theory that The Country Party is unlikely to be able to register its name with the AEC.

A simple search of the AEC website shows clearly that the only CURRENT parties using the word COUNTRY are: Country Alliance AND Country Liberals (Northern Territory) http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/party_registration/Registered_parties/. Neither of these parties are associated with the Nationals.

A further search shows that the only time that the Nationals were associated with the word COUNTRY was The National Country Party of Australia (WA) which was registered on 5/7/84 and deregistered on 24/7/85. For 384 DAYS over 29 YEARS AGO. It then ceased to exist due to amalgamation. http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Deregistered_parties/ncpa_wa.htm

The Nationals may have used the word COUNTRY unofficially but this is NOT reflected on the AEC website.

Nick-D has also made an accusation of sockpuppetry. Upon being asked to explain this accusation he says The surge in new accounts whose only purpose is to comment on this discussion might have something to do with it. It's rather silly, and the closing admin will simply ignore comments from such accounts.

Nick-D (and others) I cannot speak to your motivation but I am happy to be transparent.

I am a member of the Country Party. I have been following the comments in response to online media (previously cited) and social media, and some very common questions have been - Where can I find more info? Is there a website? Faced with this problem, ordinary people will often search the internet and even specifically go to Wikipedia and try to find out more. This is my motivation for wanting to keep the Country Party Wikipedia page in its current form - I believe that people have the right to information.

As for my account being new, I am a regular reader of Wikipedia but until now I have not felt the need to contribute and hence have not needed an account.

I would also like to state very clearly that I am not being paid in any way shape or form by the Country Party.

Nick-D, Drover's Wife & Frickeg have all implied how meaningless and unlikely to succeed the Country Party is, so I was shocked at the speed and ferocity with which they attacked this page. In light of this I would welcome similar transparency as to your motivation. Fridaycat15 (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It may well be that this party will have an article in the future, but right now that is premature. We need to wait at least until it is registered with the Electoral Commission. Whether they object to the name or not is up to them, but I expect them to have some concerns with confusion with the Country Liberal Party in the NT, whose members sit in the Federal Parliament with either the Nationals or the Liberals. The "Country" in the title is there since the County Party in the NT merged with the Liberal Party in the NT when the Nationals were called the Country Party. For now I prefer a complete delete rather than a redirect, but the current article can be moved to user space, such as Fridaycat15's. When it is registered, that will give us some reliable sources from the press. At present the sources are not that reliable. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke - Thank you for your balanced and reasonable input.

For my own future reference, I would appreciate any advice you have on including more reputable sources.

I take your point that ref#1 (the party website) and #3 (blog written by one of founders) may not credible, although I will add that the blog is not a personal one, it is published by The Land.

Ref#2 is from ABC news. Ref#4 and #5 and from The Land, with the latter being the front page article on the most recent weekly edition. I (perhaps naively) believed that these sources would be reputable.

Considering the aim of the party is rural and regional representation I think The Land (and its equivalents outside of NSW) is perhaps the most relevant publication. Fridaycat15 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy. A group with only a hundred members is one of many organisations that might one day become a registered political party, but is not currently nor ever has been one. A note to the passionate opposers of this deletion - it is acceptable to edit and improve the article during the period of this deletion discussion. As many of you are new to Wikipedia policy and process, I suggest that you read the Guide to deletion to understand what is being discussed, and WP:NOTABILITY to understand what is required in the article to demonstrate that it should be kept. long responses to every person on this page will do nothing towards retaining the article, nor will inviting more supporters to comment here, because this is not a vote. Also note that there is a difference between "credible" sources and "reliable" sources. I suggest it is WP:TOOSOON until the party is registered in at least one jurisdiction, for example the Australian Cyclists Party article was not started until the first version of the article had a reference to the list of registered parties (I have sympathy to both and relationship with neither ACP nor CPA). --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do not delete this page ***

1. Because this is a political entry - regardless of party status - deleting the page opens wikipedia to accusations of political bias. It could be argued the people arguing for the page to be deleted are politically motivated. 2. Because this issue is in flux the status quo should be maintained pro tem. The page should stay up. A time could be set, say one year, for review. 3. The page itself makes reference to the fact that it is a fledgling party, and it essentially correct and appropriate in regard to it's content. 4. The argument to delete is contrived. So what if the party is not registered? Clearly the page is timely and relevant. Dr Julian Fidge, Country Doctor, Wangaratta, Australia, former candidate for Australian Country Alliance, Victorian State Election, November 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Fidge (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Scott Davis says above, it really would help all concerned if you carefully studied some at least of our policies and guidelines particularly our notability guidelines and the guide to deletion. We are not biased or political motivated. We just know more about the standards of Wikipedia. You will probably have to accept that it will be deleted for now and put into user space where you can work on it. What it really needs is a reliable source about the registration of the party. Until it is registered it should be deleted. To do otherwise might be seen as bias against all the other articles about unregistered political parties that have been deleted in the past. It really is too soon to have this article. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:20, 25 January 2015 (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.