Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft Beer Party (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 16:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Beer Party

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

Non-notable political party. This is a political party which only ever fielded one candidate, who only received 200 votes out of an electorate of at least 5,000. As far as I can tell, it never received significant coverage in reliable sources; the only coverage I can find is trivial (e.g. [1]). This article was previously nominated for deletion back in 2005 and kept, on the dubious grounds that all political parties that have ever existed are automatically notable. If that was ever policy, I don't believe it is any more. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm in favor of keeping all political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders if their existence can be verified on general principles. I'm an ultra-inclusionist here, in other words. This page isn't something that should be here. Joke party. 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—but reluctantly. there is this as well, but sadly, it doesn't seem like enough. i would prefer that there was enough to keep it, but there seems not to be.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An embarrassment that we've been saddled with thanks to editors who insisted that it is the duty of Wikipedia to preserve every precious barnacle of random trivia that the world collects as it flies through time and space. No sources, no nothing. Merge this some place and be done with it if we must save it. Gamaliel (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting to see how Wikipedia stood back in 2005, and that it was felt that "There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion." It was felt that if something existed, that was good enough for inclusion. Well, there is evidence that this party existed, but there is no evidence for its notability, and the consensus these days is that a topic must be notable to justify a standalone article. When writing a history of Prince Edward Island, one would be selective and include only important information. This is not important enough to mention. As there are a number of beer parties who have stood for election, perhaps somebody some day will write an article on them, and this party will be mentioned in passing. Even then it wouldn't be notable enough for a standalone article as there doesn't seem to be much to say about it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political parties in Prince Edward Island#Historical parties. The PDF currently serving as the sole source for the article can be provided as a reference for the party's former existence. Angr (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2011 (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.