Talk:Secular Party of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Notability & references[edit]

This article cites no sources independent of its subject. It also makes no claims that give rise to a presumption of notability under either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Removal of maintenance templates until these issues are addressed is inappropriate. Bongomatic 11:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As a registered political party - something that is somewhat difficult to achieve - the party has required notability (and certainly will after the federal election). Having said that, you are quite right in that there are some issues that need to be addressed (including a clearer assertion of notability), so there's no reason the templates should go. Frickeg (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any guidelines or deletion discussions where weight has been giving to achieving the status of registered party. Rather, I have seen minor weight to having fielded candidates for national office, and significant weight to having placed (multiple) candidates to the highest legislative bodies. So I see no support in policy, guideline, or precedent (see WP:OUTCOMES, for example) for de facto notability of this organization.

In 2007 the SPA had members for election in every State of the country (I believe all of them for the Senate). This should add minor weight to their credibility by your reasoning. -- Shraka (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The current (as of this revision third-party sources cited are:

  • Herald Sun article that mentions the party in passing.
  • ABC Radio National interview with candidate from the party. Interviews with candidates generally do not establish notability either for the candidate or their party.
  • ON LINE opinion piece written by founding member of the party. Not independent, and cannot be used to establish notability.
  • interview with the president of the party. This source is unlikely to be considered a reliable or independent source for purposes of establishing notability.
  • AEC entry. Not voluntary coverage.
There's another link now: * Politics and religion: crossed paths - The Sydney Morning Herald - December 26, 2009 Is this at all worthy of adding credibility? I've read the guidelines and I'm still not entirely clear on what is considered notability. -- Shraka (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done media searches on the party (try Find sources: "Secular Party" Australia – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference) and have been unable to identify any news coverage that appears to establish notability. There is one book that seems to provide coverage, but it is such a specialized book that I don't personally find it compelling (others may disagree). Bongomatic 03:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed in my searches a few references to articles concerning the 2007 campaign, however I can't seem to find the actual articles. For example the Christian Today website has an article that mentions a Sunday Herald Sun article mentioning the Secular Party putting forward a submission to ban religious clothing in schools. I remember seeing mention of this in the TV news (probably ABC) back around 2007 but can't find any specific mention of it online. The Christian Today article doesn't mention what date the Sunday Herald Sun article was published on either. -- Shraka (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Source Attribution[edit]

Much of the content of this article is directly sourced from the party's web site. As such it should be attributed in detail, and modified so that it doesn't read like a party manifesto.

Neutral Point of View[edit]

It is Wikipedia policy that all articles should maintain a neutral point of view. The descriptions of those people and policies against which the party stands are often described in derogatory, belittling or dismissive terms. These should be rewritten and reference made to the alternate points of view and their appropriately related articles.

I believe these edits were made by a well meaning but, perhaps, over enthusiastic party member. I would like to propose that we revert the page back to the content that existed before the revision that copied the party's policies. Would this be an acceptable resolution? - Oysta (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. These additions are not NPOV and while I have not checked, they may be a copyvio if they are copied direct from the Party webpage. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
They were made by myself at the request of the party. I fail to see how the descriptions of person is derogatory? Maybe you can ellaborate on that please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)