Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legalise Cannabis Queensland

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 keep. While I personally feel the proliferation of articles about minor parties isn't a good thing, consensus here is clear enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legalise Cannabis Queensland[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability not established. Party has no elected members and coverage is routine for a newly announced party. There are also WP:NOTPROMO concerns, given that the election only a few weeks away. 1292simon (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator) – creation of articles for political parties, even minor ones, registered with the Australian Electoral Commission or a state electoral commission is routine and frequent and has been for years, and is a valuable part of comprehensive historical election coverage in Australia. Content is in no way promotional (my editing history in politics and elections should make that clear), and yes the state election is in a few weeks but LCQ was the only party registered with the Electoral Commission of Queensland with no article. --Canley (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general (admittedly informal) rule has been to have separate articles for parties that are registered and run endorsed candidates in federal or state elections. We have made rare exceptions for the truly obscure, but this is clearly not one of them. Canley's point above easily refutes any WP:NOTPROMO concerns and there is adequate (though not extensive) sourcing, with more inevitable over the next few weeks. Frickeg (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify This seems like a case of WP:TOSOON. As it appears that know one has ran for the party, there are hardly sources about it or people who are running in connection to it, and last time I checked a political party has to have some winning candidates to be notable anyway. That said, I wouldn't have a problem with it being drafted to the article creators user space so it can be worked on to the point of being notable if it ever is. There's really no guarantee at this point that it will be though. As a side thought, if the article creator (or anyone else) thinks that the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a place for "comprehensive historical election coverage" of Australia or anywhere else, then they should really revaluate things and review the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a topic that interests you, but it's patently obvious that hundreds of Wikipedians have created thousands of articles of comprehensive election coverage and the many times this information is referenced in the media and research shows it is useful and valuable—there's certainly no guideline against it as you suggest. Speaking of guidelines, where is the rule "the last time [you] checked" that "a political party has to have some winning candidates to be notable anyway"? --Canley (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that mention the party and/or its candidates that could be used to expand the article and help justify its notability:

https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/mackay-candidate-sick-of-being-labelled-a-criminal/4114620/
https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/car-crash-altered-life-of-pro-cannabis-whitsunday-/4111581/
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/queensland/replay-rockhampton-debate-candidates-go-headtohead-ahead-of-2020-qld-election/video/5d629cb0d5658d13291eab49aa6ad11a
https://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/candidates-address-gracemere-high-school-and-bully/4114561/
https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/car-crash-altered-life-of-pro-cannabis-whitsunday-/4111581/
https://www.news-mail.com.au/news/war-of-words-candidates-clash-over-health-worker-n/4113674/
https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/gold-coast-election-2020-former-diplomat-dr-carl-ungerer-named-as-mermaid-beach-candidate/news-story/f5593387ddcfa58e476255f2648cc945
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/dying-to-know-voters-urged-to-seek-answers-before-/4105974/
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/regional/rockhampton-candidates-lock-horns-in-online-debate-tonight/news-story/a4985fac951b9f97a7e24901bd1bd341
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-election-2020-bundaberg-live-debate-tonight/news-story/e40169f938035394ec17a3c9d035c009

I am not able to verify or use some of the sources myself as some are behind a paywall. Helper201 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been significant coverage of this party, as shown above, the article should just be improved rather than being deleted. Political parties only need significant coverage to be notable, they don't need elected members. Many historically important and influential parties (such as the Communist Parties in a lot of countries) would be removed from the site if having an MP is the sole definer of notability. See List of political parties in the United Kingdom and List of political parties in the United States. Catiline52 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 12 October 2020 (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.