Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pro-Life Alberta Political Association
If you're going to delete this page on the grounds that it covers ""...a fringe regional political party in Canada. All I can find in sources is WP:ROUTINE news coverage about generic election results and fundraising targets of Alberta political parties."" then delete these Wikipedia Pages as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_%E2%80%93_Alberta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Alberta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Party_of_Alberta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Alberta_(2016%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Advantage_Party
- @Raygamman: For one, wrong forum. Two, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. Please post your comments on the main deletion nomination page. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- For one: am a relative new comer WP:GIVEMEABREAK. Two, I don't know much about where what is posted trying to act in good faith - don't know where that is, sorry. Oh, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." That's from the page you quote.
- I would say my use of it is valid for the reasons pointed out, even if I dint post them in the right (or valid) place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygamman (talk • contribs)
- Hey, Raygamman, please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end. So, the best argument that a subject is notable deals with the subject itself rather than similar subjects that do or don't have an article. When you argue, "But X has an article!" that usually just means someone is going to go check article X and see if it needs to be nominated for deletion. Indy beetle, let's be kind to a new editor. —valereee (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- The editor in question has lashed out by asking us to purge this party's local competitors and questioned my ability to assume good faith. Please tell where I said something unkind in my request that the editor use the proper forum and adhere to stronger arguments. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Valereee thank you for your explanations! Raygamman (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Indy beetle that is an interesting interpretation. I was stating that I was acting in good faith - not questioning yours. Also, my statement regarding "to purge the party's competitors" is to mischaracterize the argument. IF the Prolife Alberta party page is to be deleted because of reasons X and Y than every other party page that is also X and Y ought to be deleted on those same grounds, that's all. I've no interest in deleting pages off Wikipedia (not that I would even know how to do that I just learned how to sign my name!) Raygamman (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Very well, glad that you're learning the ropes here. The notability of those other parties probably ought to be checked, but this discussion is for this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Indy beetle that is an interesting interpretation. I was stating that I was acting in good faith - not questioning yours. Also, my statement regarding "to purge the party's competitors" is to mischaracterize the argument. IF the Prolife Alberta party page is to be deleted because of reasons X and Y than every other party page that is also X and Y ought to be deleted on those same grounds, that's all. I've no interest in deleting pages off Wikipedia (not that I would even know how to do that I just learned how to sign my name!) Raygamman (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle, this is an editor with 41 edits. Many newish editors get frustrated and angry. Let's try to be kind. —valereee (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Valereee thank you for your explanations! Raygamman (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- The editor in question has lashed out by asking us to purge this party's local competitors and questioned my ability to assume good faith. Please tell where I said something unkind in my request that the editor use the proper forum and adhere to stronger arguments. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, Raygamman, please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end. So, the best argument that a subject is notable deals with the subject itself rather than similar subjects that do or don't have an article. When you argue, "But X has an article!" that usually just means someone is going to go check article X and see if it needs to be nominated for deletion. Indy beetle, let's be kind to a new editor. —valereee (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)