| Revision as of 10:05, 27 June 2006 editNscheffey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,278 edits →[]: delete← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:49, 19 March 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,673 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (7x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was '''DELETE'''. ]<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 00:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| probable spoof, only reference a blog. --] 07:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | probable spoof, only reference a blog. --] 07:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *pleas do not delet the New Communist Party of Australia because it works for the benefit of the comon person <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| *'''Delete''', fails ], only 6 unique Google hits. Nothing verifiable. --''']''' <small>]</small> 08:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', fails ], only 6 unique Google hits. Nothing verifiable. --''']''' <small>]</small> 08:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Comment''' What you say it fails states very clearly, "This page is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'."](]) 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' ] ] 08:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' ] ] 08:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' non-Notable. Most hits are to the "new" (i.e. newly formed) ], and the Blog notes that it only has ''between 5 to 7 members''. — ] ] | <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' non-Notable. Most hits are to the "new" (i.e. newly formed) ], and the Blog notes that it only has ''between 5 to 7 members''. — ] ] | <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''', per ] --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', per ] --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Lack of verifiability and notability. ] (]) 10:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] (]) 10:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Delete''' - not registered by ] - see , but I have tried other combinations.--]\<sup>]</sup> 10:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. I'm guessing it's made up. --] 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Just a soapbox. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' probably some kids idea, while being a worthy article, it doesnt have a place on wikipedia. ] 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. This is unverifiable as it is not registered by the Australian Electoral Commission and there have been no references that I can find in the Australian media. ] 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' What does the Australian Electoral Commission have to do with verifiability? It's obviously not a huge group, and they may not have officially declared any candidates yet. It doesn't make it unverifiable.](]) 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - it has between 5 and 7 members, according to the article. - ] 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' not registered as a political party- just a bunch of people protesting and this isn't a soapbox.''']''' | ] 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per ] and NN. ] 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' despite my comments to some others. They lack an actual webpage and that is the only source. However, if the party does become notable, I suggest the author recreates the article.](]) 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 19:49, 19 March 2023
- 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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0 00:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
New Communist Party of Australia
probable spoof, only reference a blog. --Soman 07:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- pleas do not delet the New Communist Party of Australia because it works for the benefit of the comon person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcommunist (talk • contribs)
- Delete, fails WP:ORG, only 6 unique Google hits. Nothing verifiable. --Coredesat talk 08:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What you say it fails states very clearly, "This page is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'."KV(Talk) 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "This is a deletion to dissolve the New Communist Party of Australia..." SM247 08:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-Notable. Most hits are to the "new" (i.e. newly formed) Communist Party of Australia, and the Blog notes that it only has between 5 to 7 members. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per WP:ORG --Nscheffey 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Lack of verifiability and notability. JPD (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not registered by Australian Electoral Commission - see this search, but I have tried other combinations.--A Y Arktos\ 10:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm guessing it's made up. --Roisterer 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Just a soapbox. michael 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete probably some kids idea, while being a worthy article, it doesnt have a place on wikipedia. Zhukov 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is unverifiable as it is not registered by the Australian Electoral Commission and there have been no references that I can find in the Australian media. Capitalistroadster 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What does the Australian Electoral Commission have to do with verifiability? It's obviously not a huge group, and they may not have officially declared any candidates yet. It doesn't make it unverifiable.KV(Talk) 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - it has between 5 and 7 members, according to the article. - Richardcavell 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not registered as a political party- just a bunch of people protesting and this isn't a soapbox.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:VAIN and NN. Zos 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete despite my comments to some others. They lack an actual webpage and that is the only source. However, if the party does become notable, I suggest the author recreates the article.KV(Talk) 06:34, 30 June 2006 (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.