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 speedy keep. There is no Wikipedia policy stating "state parties are not notable". Mass nominations are usually done with articles using the same set of sources (e.g., soccer player bios where the players only play in a semi-professional league). That's not the case here and editors have stated that each article should be judged individually on its own merits. Closed, but individual AFDs for the applicable articles may be opened.
NeilNtalk to me 13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy close an entirely improper way to discuss the merits of each party's notability. Nominate them individually. Unless your point is that non-state level political parties are not notable, it is impossible discuss. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Namiba (
talk •
contribs)
Nominations of multiple articles with a similar theme or topc are done all the time.
Me-123567-Me (
talk) 19:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment This is quite a messy mass-nomination. Some of the articles included have enough reliable sources to pass GNG, some don't. There's no way for anyone to give a definitive vote either way. I suggest a speedy close of this.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy close This is quite a mess as the nominator has already merged content into the main article. Suggesting a mass undo of those and if desired to discuss and then renominate any significantly non-notable article. I would oppose quite a few of the above articles for deletion.--
☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 02:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Speed close/oppose Way too many articles grouped together to have a cogent discussion. I would in particular oppose the deletion of
Mountain Party, which has its own history separate from its more recent affiliation with the Green Party.
Bitmapped (
talk) 04:46, 17 January 2017 (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.
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 speedy keep. There is no Wikipedia policy stating "state parties are not notable". Mass nominations are usually done with articles using the same set of sources (e.g., soccer player bios where the players only play in a semi-professional league). That's not the case here and editors have stated that each article should be judged individually on its own merits. Closed, but individual AFDs for the applicable articles may be opened.
NeilNtalk to me 13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy close an entirely improper way to discuss the merits of each party's notability. Nominate them individually. Unless your point is that non-state level political parties are not notable, it is impossible discuss. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Namiba (
talk •
contribs)
Nominations of multiple articles with a similar theme or topc are done all the time.
Me-123567-Me (
talk) 19:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment This is quite a messy mass-nomination. Some of the articles included have enough reliable sources to pass GNG, some don't. There's no way for anyone to give a definitive vote either way. I suggest a speedy close of this.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy close This is quite a mess as the nominator has already merged content into the main article. Suggesting a mass undo of those and if desired to discuss and then renominate any significantly non-notable article. I would oppose quite a few of the above articles for deletion.--
☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 02:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Speed close/oppose Way too many articles grouped together to have a cogent discussion. I would in particular oppose the deletion of
Mountain Party, which has its own history separate from its more recent affiliation with the Green Party.
Bitmapped (
talk) 04:46, 17 January 2017 (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.