Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absolutely Absurd Party

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 delete. Sandstein 19:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Absurd Party

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

Not a notable political party. JDDJS (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep The references supplied in the article should suffice to show that this was a notable party in its time — about as notable as any such party ever gets. That it's defunct is irrelevant; notability isn't lost by the mere passage of time. -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A third party source is on the article, others can be found. 117Avenue (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existed but very briefly and although joke parties may not need to elect members to be notable, this does not appear to be notable enough to garner more than slightest passing mention in the sources (most of which are dead so hard to verify). Canuckle (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough sources and this party looks like farce.--Yacatisma (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently I created the article. I want to make clear however that I support all registered political parties in Canada having wiki pages. However, as you can see here - http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=par&document=index&lang=e&section=pol - the AAP lost it's ability to become registered, and thus, should be deleted. Nickjbor (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to add. I only support keeping historical parties if they are somehow of note. AFAIK the AAP never ran in any election, and thus, should not be included. For lack of a better definition, I'd say any party that took 1% of the vote nationwide, or, due to it's uniqueness, 1% in Quebec, or, won 1 seat, ever, should thus qualify as "notable" for historical reasons. Nickjbor (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortlived political party that was never actually registered to run candidates in any election at all, which accordingly garnered only very limited coverage that isn't substantial enough to warrant keeping a permanent article. I absolutely agree that any registered political party should be a valid article topic regardless of its degree of electoral success or failure, but that's not applicable here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.