Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party

obvious hoax / original research AlexTiefling 15:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete - is fictitious --Sgkay 15:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...WP:POINT about the Draft Beer Party VfD? Delete this. Samaritan 18:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Keep ~~Capitalistroadster's~~ the rewrite. Samaritan 03:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nonsense but there was a real Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party that stood candidates in the first Australian Capital Territory elections in 1989. Its preferences went to elect Residents Rally candidates to the Assembly. As a result of the lax party registration laws that allowed this party and other similar parties to stand candidates, the electoral legislation in the ACT was changed to provide that parties must have 100 members and a constitution before they could register. I would vote delete for this article but would keep an article about the real Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party. I will have a go at writing it myself. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Revised version. I was going to rewrite it myself but someone got in ahead of me. Capitalistroadster 04:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if article re-written as per comments by Capitalistroadster --AYArktos 01:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the re-written version. --bainer 02:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Capitalistroadster is correct - just one of a myriad of frivolous political parties. I believe their platform was to ban gas-ripened tomatoes in particular.--Cyberjunkie 07:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A most definite keep. —RaD Man (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to list of frivolous political parties. Sceptical about having separate articles for each of these, especially if there's as little to say about them as the SRWTP (the second sentence isn't even particular to it). By all means branch one out if there's a lot to write about it, but that doesn't seem the case here. JRM · Talk 22:00, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Keep. I'd heard of it before. Ambi 02:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the original proposer, I'd like to back the new, edited version. AlexTiefling 19:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the material, or at least Merge and redirect to list of frivolous political parties as suggested by JRM. This was a real political party, created like some other nonsense parties, as a reaction to self-government being forced on the Australian Capital Territory -- despite two referendums at which the ACT electorate declined to buckle under and agree with the then Prime Minister of Australia, Bob Hawke. The Australian Government still retains a Minister for Territories (actually Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads), and the local public service still exists, too. People figured that not much would change, and it's a debatable point. This party and the Party! Party! Party! Party made the first ACT Legislative Assembly election into a national joke, and us locals still regularly use the inside joke of the name of this party. Peter Ellis 01:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.