Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Alternative

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 keep. W.marsh 21:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Alternative

Ontario Alternative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

Blatant COI (compare history log to article title). This looks like a wannabe third party that doesn't yet have notability in its grasp. I'll probably change my mind if someone can tone down the POV and find solid references. Shalom ^Hello 04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As only one edit has been made to the article, and since the article is less than 24 hours old, I think it appropriate to notify the creator. the_undertow ^talk 09:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Really, really needs independent reliable sources. Ghits just returned mainly "Alternative Energy" and "Alternative Lifestyle" related results.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and re-write. This party was covered in today's National Post (page A8). They are seeking registration with Elections Ontario, so they are significant enough to merit an article, just not this one. I have taken a first run at it. There is still more work to be done, but I ask the nominator to review the new versiono f the article. Ground Zero | t 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. If they do register and get their act together, the page can then be recreated. GreenJoe 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as it is now. The information now on the page is what was reported today in newspapers across Canada. Anything else is speculative and unverifiable unless you work with the party. Also, the point of "will not" or "has not" should be left as "will not". Wiki is not a crystal ball, true, but the party is founded on economic principles and takes a laissez-faire approach to social issues. Sort of a "right-wing economic, no-wing social" party. Spearmintmints 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a new voter. GreenJoe 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Any political party that actually nominates candidates in any election is entitled to an encyclopedia article — the candidates themselves might not be, but the party certainly is. And since the
  Ontario provincial election is a grand total of 12 weeks away, we're not doing our job as an encyclopedia if any party that has candidates in that election can't be written about. Scrub for POV, but keep. Bearcat 07:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - and check for POV. The party has been covered by reliable sources, and official party recognition only requires running two candidates which is a very low bar to clear. -- Whpq 20:43, 12 July 2007 (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.