Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Conservative Group

:{{la|New Conservative Group}} ([{{fullurl:New Conservative Group|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Conservative Group}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

fails WP:ORG, nothing in [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22new+conservative+group%22+%22australian+capital+territory%22&cf=all google news search], and mainly mirrored sites on wiki article in [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22new%20conservative%20group%22%20%22australian%20capital%20territory%22&ned=us&hl=en&sa=N&tab=nw Google search]. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Registered political party, had sitting MP, obviously has reliable sources. It's hardly surprising that it doesn't turn up in Google News when the party hasn't been active since the early 1990s, since to my knowledge no Australian newspapers from that era are online. Rebecca (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

: Google news also includes articles available from subscription news archive databases. not just papers with online articles. LibStar (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:: The Canberra Times only goes back to 1996 in any online database, so most of the coverage of the schism and founding of the NCG wouldn't be there. The Sydney Morning Herald's coverage goes back further, but their available articles are really spotty; I've run into this before, but a quick check on some high-profile figures there's massive gaps in their coverage prior to about the same time period. As one example - there's roughly the same number of SMH articles available on Nathan Rees in the last month as there was for Nick Greiner in the whole of his five-year premiership. As they're the only papers with any history of covering ACT politics whatsoever, Google news isn't really a very useful source for anything that happened in this era. Rebecca (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::regardless, we still need evidence of significant coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::As I said before, the existence of reliable sources are not in doubt; the problem is accessing them, seeing as one needs offline access to newspapers from the early 1990s, which require access to a library which actually has these. This was a registered party founded by a member of parliament. Every similar split I can think of in more recent times has led to an abundance of reliable sources on the new party; hell, on the Google-able sources alone, we have articles on basically every party that even contested a seat in parliament anywhere in Australia after 1996. Attempting to delete an article, where reliable sources obviously exist, merely because they're not online, is recentism gone mad. Rebecca (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::simply being a registered political party with a sitting MP does not automatically qualify an article? If anything, the MP should have an article but maybe not the party? I would understand more if it was 1930. and is the only coverage Canberra Times? I'm not sure if that is wide enough. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::The fact that it had a sitting MP certainly implies notability, because every such case that I can think of has resulted in substantial media coverage. We have a history of reliably-sourced articles on substantially less notable parties, and deleting this would blow a hole in our coverage of an important era in ACT politics; the rather turbulent first parliament, where minor parties (including this one) were fundamental to both the passage of legislation and which party held office (there were two changes of government during the single term - a nearly unheard of event in Australian politics).

::::::It's a bit disingenous to start making implications about the reliability of the Canberra Times - it's a major daily paper, and the only daily paper in the Australian Capital Territory, which was where this political party was based. It figures that it's going to be the major source here. The Sydney Morning Herald (and also The Australian) did bits-and-pieces coverage of ACT politics in this period - it's quite possible they covered it, but I couldn't be sure either way without actually looking through them.

::::::You (since you appear to be in Canberra) could wander down to the National Library tomorrow, grab a few stacks of papers, and solidly source and expand this article in a couple of hours. One of the ironies of this discussion is that, if this were a party from 1930s like you suggested, we wouldn't even be having this at all; every edition of the Canberra Times up until the end of the current public domain period in 1953 is online and searchable. The whole point is that this is currently not the case for the period in which this party was active. Rebecca (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in Canberra. but I'm not suggesting Canberra Times is unreliable, but wide coverage implies more coverage than 1 paper. you seem very keen to keep this, so why don't you visit the library? LibStar (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

: We have a history of reliably-sourced articles on substantially less notable parties sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...notability is established through coverage, what you may consider "less notable" is purely your opinion. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm afraid that you're making up guidelines. I'll quote from WP:NOTABILITY: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The topic, on the basis that I have explained above, clearly passes this; as would the article if someone with access to a library that actually has the papers from this area would take a few hours to include that information here. Rebecca (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Well I'll await evidence of this, anyone can say there exists wide coverage but you haven't provided the evidence...so I'll assume good faith and think that you or someone else will. There's 6 days left of this AfD... and no I'm not going to Canberra to establish the notability of 1 Wikipedia article.LibStar (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::You'll understand then why I'm not racing off to hunt down copies of the Canberra Times somewhere in Western Australia because one Wikipedia editor's behaving like a twit. I've clearly set out why reliable sources both exist and aren't going to be too difficult to find for someone with proper access. Beyond that, I rely on people's judgement that notable things that happened prior to 1996 don't suddenly become non-notable because the media coverage about them isn't available online. Rebecca (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::are you calling me a twit? I did what can be expected to establish notablity before nominating for deletion. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::: You searched Google News for a party that existed in 1991-1992, when Google News doesn't cover any of the newspapers anywhere in the area prior to 1996? My, you should win an award! Rebecca (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is plainly silly - the Canberra Times is a newspaper of record (it's hardly a local rag), the party clearly passes notability, parliamentary party (albeit briefly), went to election. Google is not the be all and end all of research (despite what some non-scholars think) - in fact most of the stuff I use off Factiva is not on Google News. This is even more the case the further you go back. Orderinchaos 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

: could you please provide citations then? LibStar (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:: Not possible at this stage - as has already been explained to you, very few Australian newspapers prior to 1996 are online (in fact even the Australian isn't online prior to 2001.) Strangely, stubs are not illegal on Wikipedia, and this happens to be one of them. My state library has Canberra Times on microfilm but as I have urgent assignments due on 30 June I do not have the time to trawl through 2 years of newspaper coverage. However [http://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections/1992/candidates_92.html this] confirms they ran in 1992 with Robyn Nolan as ticket leader, and [http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/members/index.asp?sortby=&profile=90&assembly=1#90 this] confirms they had a sitting mp. Notability met. Now move on. Orderinchaos 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per Rebecca. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca. Simply because there are no hyperlinks to pre-internet coverage about this topic doesn't magically mean they never existed. And the idea that The Canberra Times is not reliable is curious to say the least. --Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as found this[http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/education/memlist/memlist.pdf] in addition to what Orderinchaos has shown. It is reasonable that further sources could be found. I must say that the attitude being displayed against the nominator is a bit out of order, considering there weren't even any sources to show verifiability. And nowhere has Libstar said that the Canberra Times is unreliable, just an expectation that if something is notable it would be in multiple reliable sources. It does say multiple sources are preferred in WP:GNG after all. Quantpole (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

: Thank you for your comments Quantpole, yes I never said Canberra Times was unreliable. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I totally understand the editor's nomination--it LOOKS like this would be something where there are absolutely no sources so the nomination is totally legit. But I agree very strongly with Rebecca's and Oakshade's comments about non-online coverage...I think editors in general tend to be too quick to claim there is no coverage just because there is no online coverage, or no public-access coverage and I think it's important for articles like this to give time (on the order of MONTHS) to turn up such sources. It is tricky to search for this party because lots of other things come up under "New Conservative Group" but even under google I was able to verify that this party existed, and was founded by Robyn Noland. Cazort (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• If coverage exists in the Canberra Times then it should be verifiable. Many libraries have searchable archive of papers not available online. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• We've been through this already. The articles themselves from this entire period are not online; it would be fantastic if there was a searchable archive of articles not online, but unfortunately I am not aware of any. Rebecca (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::* I am satisfied with Rebecca's explanation. I regularly encounter material on wikipedia and elsewhere where print sources exist but are not searchable. Here is a book source I found just now: [http://books.google.com/books?id=NMrav_dyyY0C&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=%22New+Conservative+Group%22+%22robyn+nolan%22&source=bl&ots=mtf2asTMBG&sig=trr1lv6SYY4o-v2NP1IjqCHByYs&hl=en&ei=kXo6SuOZI8HUlAeStb3qDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4]. That book cites a print article in The Australian from 1991...which is also outside of the range of electronic archiving of that publication--from their website, archiving started in 1995. There's no question of verifiability, even without the newspaper articles. And my own research is verifying that Rebecca's claims are correct. Cazort (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - notable minor party with sitting MP --- clearly over the bar. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, not many parties have had sitting MPs in a state or territory parliament; the fact that this one has makes it notable. Suggest nominator withdraw nomination, as there is clearly no way this will be closed as Delete, and I don't see anything productive coming from further discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:27, 19 June 2009 (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.