Talk:Deadly Serious Party

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 May 2014. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Deadly Serious Party is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Notability

What are the notability criteria for such parties? The DSP certainly ran candidates in every election for over a decade. It got the same newspaper notice as any such party gets. During every election campaign there would be several mentions of it in each of the newspapers. What more could one want? Of course those newspaper archives are not easily accessible now, so I can't cite specific articles, but they were there all right. So how are they less notable than any other joke party? -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Appointing silly people to all the portfolios that matter"

I've noticed a disparity between the article listed as a source here and the text on the site. On one hand, the source states that the party was against this motion, however the article simply states that, in fact, this was one of the party's main interests. Which was it?

APenInSpace (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]