Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companions and Pets 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 draftify‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Companions and Pets Party

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Companions and Pets Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

NORG fail. (Article is also promotional/POV, but not relevant here.) Source 1 is a primary source, 3, 6 and 7 are passing list mentions. 2 is behind a paywall, so I can't see it (doesn't make a difference if it satisfies GNG criteria). 4 is a copy-paste from the party press release, according to the line at the bottom of the article. 5 is also locked behind a paywall but from what I can see it appears to be an interview. 8 is an obviously non-independent source from the lobby behind the party. Unable to find any additional coverage. Fermiboson (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. Fermiboson (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Fringe political party. Source analysis by nom clearly shows GNG not met. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and @LibStar

  Cray04 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Draftify. I did create the article, and I don't consider it promotional, or at least was never intended to be as such. Regardless, I am more than willing to alter the content to make something more substantial. (though I do also express some concerns that the draft I submitted to AfC was probably accepted pre emptively, but that's not a discussion for here). KangarooGymnast (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

While I accept your good faith, I'm not sure how linking "animal extremists" to another political party or "provide a more pragmatic alternative" could ever be perceived as NPOV. If you do have substantial sources feel free to add them to the article as is (or just provide them - sources which show notability don't need to be in the article to pass AfD). Fermiboson (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Draftify There's an editor here who is willing to work on this article, improving its sourcing. I think it should be moved back to Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Draftify per KangarooGymnast and Liz. As KangarooGymnast has expressed a willingness to improve the article in order to satisfy the notability guidelines, I think they should be given the opportunity to do so in draft space. Sal2100 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Draftify, if there's someone willing to get it to a good standard, then it should have no problem leaving draftspace after some good work. GraziePrego (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Draftify: Currently the sourcing doesn't meet the notability standards, but if users are committed to finding additional sources, no issues putting this one in draft space so they can find them. User:Let'srun 14:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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.