Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work Less 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 keep. I've had second thoughts about this. There is a consensus to merge this article but it's unclear which article is to be the target. Since there's no consensus to delete this article, I think it's best to close this discussion as "keep" and let the editors hash it out on the talk page. The only difference between this and a "merge" close is the absence of a big purple tag on the page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work Less Party

The party has recieved minimal press coverage in and around Vancouver. Other than this, the party is most notable for the sheer lack of votes it has recieved. Because of the lack of substantial coverage outside the immediate vicinity, the fact that nobody of note appears to be attached to it, and the fact that they seem to have only nominated a single candidate for Parliament, I think the party badly fails WP:N.Tyrenon (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Work Less Party of British Columbia. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this information when there is a better place for it. WP:N is not Wikipedia policy, and is not supported by many Wikipedians. Ground Zero | t 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ground Zero. Not entirely sure why these are seperate to begin with. I'd sargue that Work Less Party is the better location for it though. Artw (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - there are now several references to establish noteability, for those that support that guideline. I agree with Artw this article is the best one to keep, if the decision is keep I'll happilly merge Work Less Party of British Columbia to this one. I guess the rationale for seperate articles was that ones for the provicinal party , the other for the seperate, I will make the distinction clearer if the merge goes ahead. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment At this point a consensus to merge exists but further discussion is needed regarding what to merge into what. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2009 (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.