Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restore Democracy Sack Dan Andrews 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 no consensus‎. Ne prejudice against renominating for deletion at a later date. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Democracy Sack Dan Andrews Party[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)

Small local party, gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - bar Companions and Pets (which I get) it is the only party from the 2022 Victorian election without a page.

This party has:

- First ever openly trans Vic councillor/a current council seat

- Serious newsworthy claims that it was set up by a notorious figure

It arguably had more coverage than the Freedom Party of Victoria or New Democrats which both get a page Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My first reaction when I saw this article was that it was junk trivia. This was mostly based on the name of the party. Having now looked further into it, I have changed my mind. This is a real party. Despite the silly name, it is registered with the Victorian Electoral Commission. It is seemingly a single issue party, but so are several others on which we have articles, and this one has actually had minor electoral success. For such a tiny party and article, it is surprisingly well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a small, minor party. I can't find any coverage beyond them existing. Fringe candidate. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't find any coverage beyond them existing" - there is clear cited coverage of their founder/councillor, the claims made by Druery and asHiLo48 said it is VEC registered Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need extensive coverage of the "thing" the article is about; there isn't any here. Perhaps the founder is notable, this party isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a party that gains coverage, a reasonable vote, and is related to the Druery nonsense counts as notable. Newystats (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a political party, or is this just a bureaucratic artifact of Tosh-Jake Finnigan's political campaigns? Walt Yoder (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a political party officially registered with the Victorian Electoral Commission. I'm pretty amazed they accepted the name, but that's what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep independent SIGCOV from Canberra times and Channel 6 give rise to presumption of notability. Jack4576 (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Albeit small in number, there are articles out there for the party - and even if its not notable enough to keep in existence, surely the NDP page should be removed too? I doubt the NDP can be considered more notable than RDSDA here. AmNowEurovision (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Victorian state election. ITBF (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This might become notable, but I do not think it has yet become so. A redirect as suggested above is the best outcome at this time. I have also tidied up this discussion. I hope I have not altered the opinions of anyone. --Bduke (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a party that undoubtedly became at least partly known because of its name, it has supposed serious involvement with Glenn Druery (who is notable enough for his own page), this party has a councillor and has received media coverage for all of this Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an actual party with legislative representation and significant coverage according to WP:GNG. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2023 (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.