Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extremely Greedy 40% Extra 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 redirect to Tasmanian state election, 1996. Merging may be done if gathered consensus supports it. ÷seresin 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Greedy 40% Extra Party[edit]

Delete no indication that this political party is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't even try to assert notability; WP:PUTEFFORT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the speedy as I felt it was unfair to speedy it in its current condition of having been severely stubbified. I have restored much of the original material trying to leave out most of the "party political propaganda". I have also added a reference, such as it is. I am not !voting, it may well be that this is still not notable enough for an article, but the discussion should at least be on the article the editor actually wrote. At the very least, there is evidence that the party really did stand in elections. SpinningSpark 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The party was more of a curiosity than a serious party - it certainly cracked the headlines in the particular election it ran in and most likely, by having its name on the ballot paper, got a single issue into the heads of voters while voting. The article in its present form is acceptable, provided better sources can be located. Not voting, as I cannot honestly decide whether what I have said qualifies it for notability or not. Orderinchaos 10:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (allowing merge if someone feels they can do one) to the only election I can see they stood in - Tasmanian state election, 1996 and where we already cover them quite a bit. Unless more coverage in reliable sources can be found an individual article does not seem to meet notability guideline but a redirect does seem appropriate given the coverage in the election article and allows recreation if more coverage is found and article rewritten based on that coverage. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2009 (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.