Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of frivolous political parties

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 no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of frivolous political parties

This list is woefully subjective and the term "frivolous" is impossible to fit with the WP:NPOV policy. List has a long history and we can see quite a lot of reverts on the list with the reason "not a frivolous party". Is for instance the comedian party The Political Party (Norway) a "frivolous" party when it can garner almost 1% of the vote? Absolutely no criteria listed for discriminating parties between the "frivolus" and the "small, eccentric, but sincere", hence no good justification for having a list of this nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't be objective here.--Sandy Scott 10:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or redirect as per following comment. Note considerable overlap with Joke political party (into which it could easily be smerged) which, though a mite subjective, perhaps, is a lot easier to keep POV-free. Grutness...wha? 10:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of what is said above is correct, but this article brings together some fascinating articles. There does need to be something that helps people to find these articles. They are fun. I'm not sure what is for the best. Maybe lists can be subjective as long as the articles they point to are notable, NPOV and not OR. I'm inclined to say Keep. --Bduke 12:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the definition may appear too subjective on first glance, the need for the criteria Sjakkalle mentions doesn't seem to arise. Very few parties go for "ambiguously serious", and those listed are firmly in the whacko corner: the kind of people who wish to repeal the law of gravity, support human rights for viruses, challenge militaries to pillow fights or run "for a bitter Canada" under Pope Terence the First. The list works wery well as it is. If it needs criteria, go ahead and try to add some. No attempt to do so has been made, and I don't think we can dismiss their feasibility out of hand.
If we cannot call the Mad Hatter's Tea Party or Party! Party! Party! frivolous, our interpretation of NPOV has gone too far. There is very little reasonable or other kind of doubt that it would be an appropriate word for these parties, least of all from their members.
Sjakkalle asks if garnering more than 1% of the vote makes the Norwegian Political Party nonfrivolous. That tells you more about Norway than about the party, I'm afraid. Notwithstanding one notorious event where a brand of foot powder won mayorship, definitely silly parties have won both larger percentages of the vote and actual parlamential representation. He points out that the article is a good target for vandalism. It is. So what? This vandalism is dealt with, the article is upheld, and this should only be an issue if the situation is insufferable or if we're appeasing vandals, which it isn't and we aren't. Merge if you wish, rename if you wish, but do not delete. --Kizor 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There really isn't much potential for ambiguity. If you look at the history of entries reverted for lack of frivolity, none of them were close calls. Their insertion was very clearly deliberate vandalism, and there was no protest at their removal. The number of votes a party attracts is no measure of its seriousness; a large number of voters may choose to get in on the joke, but it remains a joke. The distinction is clear: a serious party seeks to influence public policy, no matter how little support it actually has; a frivolous party doesn't care about public policy, its purpose is entertainment or advertising. Zsero 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Frivolous" is definitely non-NPOV. What to one person may be a joke, to another may be a protest vote. Americans do not vote for the Libertarian, Green, or Socialist parties in presidential elections because they seriously expect their candidate to win the election, so to some people, these parties could be considered "frivolous". --Psiphiorg 23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As addressed above, this article is reserved for, and has been limited to, intentionally ludicrous parties that wish to repeal the law of gravity or something, not those with actual serious aims. Libertarians, Greens or Socialists have not been allowed in, nor will they be. --Kizor 00:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might sound POV, but it is an actual concept. Although Joke political party seems to be the more common name for it. Things like the Libertarians have an actual political platform that deals with political issues. Still as many Wikipedians need things spelled out to the letter it could perhaps be renamed to "List of political parties with intentionally humorous platforms" or something.--T. Anthony 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has inherent POV. TSO1D 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Joke political party or rename the list. --Howrealisreal 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, with reservations, but also rename since the use of 'frivolous' is hopelessly POV. The actual criteria for the list seem pretty clear and the actual list seems to be far less POV than the title would indicate. However, it still needs better sources: find the actual political science term for the parties, if there is one, source it and use it (and I'm sure there is). --The Way 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discuss a better name in talk page for this article an for Joke political party. Cleanup both. Make sure a difference is kept between real, registered ones and those from category:Fictional political parties `'mikkanarxi 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep actually this list and the Category:Joke political parties are quite consistent and have not been troubled by the edit waring Sjakkalle expects, except for some vandalism. The definition used on Joke political party (a political party which has been created for the purposes of entertainment or political satire) is simple, elegant and clear. Every party on the list meets that criterion. C mon 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Per nom~~ I believe this list could be considered POV given the fact some people belonging to these parties believe they are making a poltical statement. What is or isn't frivolous is in the eye of the beholder and very arbitrary. Davidpdx 10:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the nom is pretty poor, want to make a better case. Even the nom admits that the list distinguishs between frivolous and non-frivolous parties (without using enumerated criteria) and everyone's who's read the list can see there's no ambiguity about whether a party is frivolous or not (like pornography, it's hard to define, but A rhinocerous as party president is one of those giveaways that makes it easy to know when you see it. WilyD 19:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' extremely useful list with very definite criteria. Maybe a clearer introduction would prevent the kind of misunderstanding the nominator has, but that's not AfD's concern. WilyD 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You could actually fit some of this into BJAODN. Sr13 09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As WilyD said, the list distinguishes quite effectively between frivolous and serious parties. This is a well-recognized phenomenon and quite definitely real. What on Earth has BJAODN got to do with it? Should we delete articles about genuine, notable things on the grounds that they are silly? --Kizor 19:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely POV. No way to be objective in an article titled like this. (Cardsplayer4life 09:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Move to "List of joke political parties" for the purpose of NPOV, but the criterion that they were all created for the purposes of entertainment or satire is clearly defined by the article. If the page is not moved, this definition should added to the list itself to clarify. —ShadowHalo 22:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Joke political party - that page has the definition and explanation right at the top, so there's no need to have debates about what constitutes a frivolous party. Quack 688 07:44, 17 December 2006 (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.