Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia)

Country Party (Australia)

Country Party (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very new, minor party, unregistered (and extraordinarily unlikely to achieve registration under the current name). Two independent references cited, one in the ABC and one from The Land (the other is an op-ed from the founder), not really indicative of significant notability (basically the founding of the party, so WP:ONEEVENT). An example of WP:TOOSOON, especially since this party is less than a month old. (Removed PROD.) Frickeg (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect. I wouldn't have even bothered bringing this one to AfD: Country Party (Australia) is an extremely logical redirect as the former name for many decades of Australia's third-largest party, this party is extremely unlikely to ever be registered under this name, and until such time as this party gains registration they're not notable anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that for some reason the AfD notice is not showing on the page itself. I have no idea why. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Might be because I used Twinkle to nominate it, it took a little while. It's showing now. As for AfD, it was a removed PROD, which I should have mentioned in the rationale and will add now. Frickeg (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is important that any decision here is actually based on accurate information. I note that Frickeg elected not to mention that the party was deemed sufficiently notable to be covered on the front page of The Land (15 Jan 2015 edition) even though Frickeg had been made aware of this. There is also considerably more coverage of the party than indicated above and Frickeg was also aware of this but elected not to present that. There is genuine interest in the party which emerges in comments on the article. One of the articles in the land was shared (from The Land website) 1300 times in a few days, suggesting notability especially given the demographic to which it is relevant, this count doesn't include the number of "on-shares".

The party was considered sufficiently notable for it to be attacked by Barnaby Joyce (deputy PM in waiting) here: http://www.farmonline.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/barnabys-ready-for-country-comp/2720978.aspx

More coverage here: http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/cpa-eyes-federal-election/2721134.aspx

There has been no Country Party in Australia for 40 years. The Nationals made a clear choice to abandon the name as they felt it did not accurately reflect their aspirations. Only a very small proportion of the Australian voter base will have ever voted in an Election where a Country Party had candidates. The criticisms above do not reflect this very considerable expanse in time, or decision to disassociate from the name.

The Country Party is particularly notable in that is has been formed in response to an unfolding rural crisis which is a nationally significant issue. Those suffering the effects of the crisis do not feel appropriately represented in the political process.

The founder is himself notable as the immediate past chairman of Grain Producers Australia (GPA) where he represented the interests of all Australian Grain Growers and his organisation had federal oversight of the research program for GRDC. The founder ensured the orderly ongoing carriage of legislated responsibilities after the financial collapse the predecessor of GPA.

Rlm2802 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A review of the AEC records will show that the National Party of Australia was never known by the name of the "Country Party of Australia". As such contrary to the claims above the wikipedia redirection that is presently in place is invalid.

Jam2409 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - this is a new and unregistered political group who do not meet our notability criteria. I agree that this would be a sensible redirect to the National Party (as a housekeeping matter only, without implying anything regarding this group or the National Party and their relationship). Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of clear indicators of notability have been provided.

It is sufficiently notable for the Warren Truss (deputy PM) and Barnaby Joyce (Minister for Agriculture and federal cabinet member and next Deputy PM) to engage on the issue.

It is sufficiently notable for it to receive front page coverage in The Land (Australia's leading rural press) yesterday.

It is sufficiently notable for it to generate considerable public comment and sharing.

It is sufficiently notable for to be covered in other rural press.

It is sufficiently notable for the ABC to cover it.

It is sufficiently notable for multiple articles in The Land.

It is notable on the basis that it is a direct response to difficult issues facing the rural sector.

This is a rural issue and certainly notable to those concerned with rural issues.

Please therefore explain the statement that "the notability criteria are not met".

Is it possible that the commenters might not be sufficiently familiar with Australian rural issues to be well placed to perceive the notability. It should be understood that this has arisen because rural people felt their issues had been ignored, consider that the deletion of this article constitute a reinforcement of that propensity to consider rural issues irrelevant.

Redirection to the National Party would fail to recognise that the National Party distanced itself from this name starting 4 decades ago on the basis that it considered it a poor descriptor for the party. Redirecting to the Nationals would therefore be directly contrary to their own clearly telegraphed and longstanding intentions.

Rlm2802 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never bothered to participate in Wikipedia content before, but this is a topic of great interest to me and I am inclined to be sympathetic to Rlm2802's case. Firstly, he is correct that the National Party was never known as the Country Party of Australia and it is a unique party name in Australia at this time. Secondly, rural and regional representation is in itself very notable and precisely why this Party has been covered so extensively in such a short time and why the story is unlikely to die quickly so WPTOOSOON seems irrelevant. Thirdly, the co founder and chairman Pete Mailler is notable in that a google search yields many articles and these reports cover many roles and events which will add notoriety to this event and in many respects enhances the notability of the Party and its launch. Fourth, his concerns about the accuracy of the redirect of Country Party of Australia to the Nationals is not accurate and in my view is not an acceptable reference for the name. Fifth, a quick search shows that the articles referenced by Rlm2802 plus http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/new-political-voice-for-country-voters/2720196.aspx have been in multiple rural publications in multiple states as well as the online content increasing the notability again. I oppose the deletion proposal and depending on the outcome of this discussion will likely recommend that the pre-existing Country Party of Australia page be deleted because it is inaccurate and misleading. Apologies Rlm2802 if you are not male. OlfR (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is obvious. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion of this page.

In addition to the media articles that have already been mentioned, this issue was deemed suitable for the front page of The Land on 16/01/15 (circulation of over 42,000 per week - details here http://www.fairfaxagmedia.com.au/the-land-1025.html).

I question the political impartiality of the individuals recommending this page for deletion or redirection. Drover's Wife for example appears to have authored multiple biographies of LNP politicians which are unconditionally positive.

I would also ask Nick D's to explain the basis is for his accusation of "sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry".

Fridaycat15 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)