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. Daniel Bryant 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom from religion party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, looks to be a legitimate political party, can be cleaned up to look less advertise-y. --Candy-Panda 11:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 12:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, eyh, a non-registered political party with no representation or prospect of getting it any time soon? As much as I agree with the ideas behind this party, they're not notable. Lankiveil 12:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Delete - what a joke of an article, and a joke of an organisation. Pure and simple advertising, should be speedied. JRG 13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom and ors. The party is not currently registered, and therefore does not meet notability requirments. The article also reeks of conflict of interest issues as it seems to be written by someone very close to the subject in question. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked at the original user name that created this article which virtually proves it was created by someone with a conflict of interest. I've also taken a look at the contribs, and it seems the user is a single issue editor. If an admin could close this as soon as possible, i'll go off and have some fun cleaning up the mess the user's caused. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- cannot find inclusion in any notable sources Thunderwing 16:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assrtion of notability nor any independent references Alex Bakharev 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: apparent conflict of interest, no evidence or assertion of notability. There's no proof that this party consists of more than the single person mentioned in the article. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The party is unregistered (its page suggests it is trying to meet this criteria), has not yet run in any election and I am not seeing any news coverage via Factiva. Orderinchaos 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unregistered, not notable, possible hoax. Euryalus 09:11, 14 April 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.