- 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. nom is advised to read and follow WP:BEFORE before nominating any articles here, Consensus is a clear keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
United Patriots Front
AfDs for this article:
- United Patriots Front ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This organisation is clearly a nothing organisation and has, and will have, no historical significance what so ever. I therefore am nominating this article for deletion for a second time. Geelongite ( talk) 11:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – I'm personally entirely against the stances that these types of groups perpetuate, but the group nevertheless meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America 1000 12:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Reclaim Australia. The UPF was born originally as a splinter group of Reclaim Australia and as such, it is probably better suited to be included in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.142.46 ( talk) 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly, Reclaim Australia should be merged into United Patriots Front. Reclaim Australia was very short-lived, and no longer exists. UPF seems to have got much more media coverage. Orthogonal1 ( talk) 01:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious keep, considerable RS coverage. Even if they turn out to be a flash in the pan, they're clearly encyclopedia material and well-sourced - David Gerard ( talk) 15:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know where to debate this ... but although I disagree with absolutely everything this organisation says and does, it is a part of the political landscape in Australia at the moment, and should remain listed in Wikipedia. Its historical significance cannot possible be judged at the moment, but I suggest it had already played a hand in shaping the current Federal Senate, via the election of three One Nation senators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.75.141 ( talk) 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious keep – the VFD here seems vexatious and based on an assessment of the historical significance of this organisation. I agree with this assessment, but it is ultimately POV and not a criterion for deletion. esperant 00:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- appears to be a notable group, per available sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- numerous references. TripleJ did a live podcast involving the United Patriots Front today with 30k+ viewers. Aeonx ( talk) 12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: They're clearly notable, even if they eventually die out. (See, for example, One Parliament for Australia.) Orthogonal1 ( talk) 01:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- United Patriots Front Could be a future government in the making. Timjones86 ( talk) 14:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- not a reason for keeping. See WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar ( talk) 12:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, plenty of sources chronicling their thuggery and other antics, separate from the thuggery and other antics of Reclaim Australia. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
- 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. nom is advised to read and follow WP:BEFORE before nominating any articles here, Consensus is a clear keep ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
United Patriots Front
AfDs for this article:
- United Patriots Front ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This organisation is clearly a nothing organisation and has, and will have, no historical significance what so ever. I therefore am nominating this article for deletion for a second time. Geelongite ( talk) 11:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – I'm personally entirely against the stances that these types of groups perpetuate, but the group nevertheless meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America 1000 12:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Reclaim Australia. The UPF was born originally as a splinter group of Reclaim Australia and as such, it is probably better suited to be included in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.142.46 ( talk) 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly, Reclaim Australia should be merged into United Patriots Front. Reclaim Australia was very short-lived, and no longer exists. UPF seems to have got much more media coverage. Orthogonal1 ( talk) 01:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious keep, considerable RS coverage. Even if they turn out to be a flash in the pan, they're clearly encyclopedia material and well-sourced - David Gerard ( talk) 15:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know where to debate this ... but although I disagree with absolutely everything this organisation says and does, it is a part of the political landscape in Australia at the moment, and should remain listed in Wikipedia. Its historical significance cannot possible be judged at the moment, but I suggest it had already played a hand in shaping the current Federal Senate, via the election of three One Nation senators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.75.141 ( talk) 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious keep – the VFD here seems vexatious and based on an assessment of the historical significance of this organisation. I agree with this assessment, but it is ultimately POV and not a criterion for deletion. esperant 00:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- appears to be a notable group, per available sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- numerous references. TripleJ did a live podcast involving the United Patriots Front today with 30k+ viewers. Aeonx ( talk) 12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: They're clearly notable, even if they eventually die out. (See, for example, One Parliament for Australia.) Orthogonal1 ( talk) 01:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- United Patriots Front Could be a future government in the making. Timjones86 ( talk) 14:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- not a reason for keeping. See WP:CRYSTAL. LibStar ( talk) 12:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, plenty of sources chronicling their thuggery and other antics, separate from the thuggery and other antics of Reclaim Australia. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
- 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.