Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Conservative Party of Canada

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. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Conservative Party of Canada

One of the article creators just removed the PROD without explanation. I object to this kind of behavior and so am taking it to an AfD, with the nominators rationale for a PROD as follows: NN, 6 Google Hits, Party Leader's article was just deleted in AfD Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - original deletion nominator ( User:Chabuk ) is the leader of the young liberal party which puts him in a conflict of interest to be involved in this discussion. Very politically motivated edit.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs massive expansion, but if correctly done, could be noteworthy Rotovia (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The YPC deserves an article, but its parties are not notable. Of course, the Youth wing of the Conservative Party of Canada is notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasoning as the other youth party. Three relevant Google hits this time around, and no party website given at all. FYI, though, it is acceptable for the author of an article to remove its PROD notice, although it would of course be more courteous to give a reason. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Political parties are notable, as are elected members of Govt. But sub-units of a party should only have a sub-section on the Parties Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is possible that the youth parliament itself is ~~not~~notable, but groups of participants are not. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (edited to correct - --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Group isn't notable. GJ (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I prodded this in the first place, the leader Justin Wollin, just had his page deleted last week. This article makes no claim to notability, no secondary sources, no media sources, etc, etc, etc. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - above User:Chabuk is the leader of the young liberal party which puts him in a conflict of interest to be involved in this discussion. Very politically motivated edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicat (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 April, 2006 (UTC)

And the above unsigned comment and the vote below are by an apparent single purpose account (see: WP:SPA), to contest these deletions. Fact is User:Chabuk is a longtime editor in good standing so please assume good faith, per WP:AGF Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is User:Chabuk has been a subject of controversy and scandal on wikipedia which got main stream media attention for his politically motivated edits over the past two years.--Politicat (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Do you really believe such comments help your case? ~~Delete~~. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Merge, per Bearcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See articles Vaughan municipal election, 2006, Alan Shefman, Susan Kadis, Michael Di Biase and any article related to Thornhill and Vaughan and especially the articles of the candidates that ran against them. User:Chabuk got a front page article in the Vaughan Citizen newspaper for his politically motivated edits on wikipedia, his edits became an issue in this election that his father (who was running) and the former Mayor had to address. His father even went as far as to say publicly in the newspaper article that he does not condone his sons actions and has asked him to stop makes these edits. THATS THE FACT JACK!--Politicat (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let those of us who were actually here at the time, and actually dealing with what actually happened, decide who is and isn't biased. (Friendly hint: Chabuk wasn't the problem.) The factjack is you weren't here and don't know what happened, so can the attitude. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and Extremely Strong Keep and Expand – I find it very amusing that the original nominator to have this article deleted is the leader of the young liberal party.--Politicat (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would only be politically motivated and biased if Chabuk were nominating this for deletion while simultaneously writing or trying to keep an article about another political party in the same body, which he hasn't done — in fact, he's voted to have numerous NYPC-Liberal articles deleted as non-notable too. And Politicat's "controversy and scandal" comment above betrays an almost total lack of understanding of what actually happened — Chabuk was a victim, not a perpetrator, of politically-motivated editing. Politicat, you are hereby advised to assume good faith, with the warning that you can be blocked if you continue to make inappropriate allegations that are irrelevant to the matter at hand. As for the group, the New Youth Parliament of Canada is not an actual legislative body, and accordingly its individual political parties are not notable enough for independent articles. Merge into the NYPC article. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I'm not going to wade into this nonsense, I will say one thing. If someone had created a page on the Liberal Youth Party of Canada (the group which I lead), I can guarantee you 100% that I would have nominated it for deletion at the same time I nominated these. The fact is, all of these parties are utterly non-notable in Wiki terms. The near-consensus that has emerged here to delete or merge (with the exception of the single-purpose account) simply shows that, as before, my only interest in this matter is upholding Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, make a page for the LYPC - I'll have that deleted also. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. For that matter, delete New Youth Parliament of Canada, too, for lack of notability. Argyriou (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The YCPC is an official party in the Youth Parliament of Canada. This group will become much more notable come February with the media launch of the Youth Parliament of Canada. Nick8670(talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 6 google results, none of them reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (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.