Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:44, 17 January 2015

Country Party (Australia)

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) This template must be substituted.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) This template must be substituted.[reply]

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

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) This template must be substituted.[reply]

The surge in new accounts whose only purpose is to comment on this discussion might have something to do with it. It's rather silly, and the closing admin will simply ignore comments from such accounts. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion OR redirection.

Nick-D, Drover's Wife & Frickeg all object to the name - The Country Party.

It has been suggested that this page should be redirected to the Nationals page due to the name - The Country Party - being associated with the Nationals.

It has also been suggested that this page should be deleted on the theory that The Country Party is unlikely to be able to register its name with the AEC.

A simple search of the AEC website shows clearly that the only CURRENT parties using the word COUNTRY are: Country Alliance AND Country Liberals (Northern Territory) http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/party_registration/Registered_parties/. Neither of these parties are associated with the Nationals.

A further search shows that the only time that the Nationals were associated with the word COUNTRY was The National Country Party of Australia (WA) which was registered on 5/7/84 and deregistered on 24/7/85. For 384 DAYS over 29 YEARS AGO. It then ceased to exist due to amalgamation. http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Deregistered_parties/ncpa_wa.htm

The Nationals may have used the word COUNTRY unofficially but this is NOT reflected on the AEC website.

Nick-D has also made an accusation of sockpuppetry. Upon being asked to explain this accusation he says The surge in new accounts whose only purpose is to comment on this discussion might have something to do with it. It's rather silly, and the closing admin will simply ignore comments from such accounts.

Nick-D (and others) I cannot speak to your motivation but I am happy to be transparent.

I am a member of the Country Party. I have been following the comments in response to online media (previously cited) and social media, and some very common questions have been - Where can I find more info? Is there a website? Faced with this problem, ordinary people will often search the internet and even specifically go to Wikipedia and try to find out more. This is my motivation for wanting to keep the Country Party Wikipedia page in its current form - I believe that people have the right to information.

As for my account being new, I am a regular reader of Wikipedia but until now I have not felt the need to contribute and hence have not needed an account.

I would also like to state very clearly that I am not being paid in any way shape or form by the Country Party.

Nick-D, Drover's Wife & Frickeg have all implied how meaningless and unlikely to succeed the Country Party is, so I was shocked at the speed and ferocity with which they attacked this page. In light of this I would welcome similar transparency as to your motivation. Fridaycat15 (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It may well be that this party will have an article in the future, but right now that is premature. We need to wait at least until it is registered with the Electoral Commission. Whether they object to the name or not is up to them, but I expect them to have some concerns with confusion with the Country Liberal Party in the NT, whose members sit in the Federal Parliament with either the Nationals or the Liberals. The "Country" in the title is there since the County Party in the NT merged with the Liberal Party in the NT when the Nationals were called the Country Party. For now I prefer a complete delete rather than a redirect, but the current article can be moved to user space, such as Fridaycat15's. When it is registered, that will give us some reliable sources from the press. At present the sources are not that reliable. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke - Thank you for your balanced and reasonable input.

For future reference I would appreciate any advice on including more reputable sources.

I take your point that ref#1 (the party website) and #3 (blog written by one of founders) may not independent enough, although I will add that the blog is not a personal one, it is published by The Land.

Ref#2 is from ABC news. Ref#4 and #5 and from The Land, with the latter being the front page article on the most recent weekly edition. I (perhaps naively) believed that these sources would be reputable.

Considering the aim of the party is rural and regional representation I think The Land (and its equivalents outside of NSW) is perhaps the most relevant publication. Fridaycat15 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]