420:. I've done my best to expand the article, but the only sources I've been able to find are lists of election results and the party's own website. The other Google hits appear to be discussions on forums where someone has asked a questions along the lines of "anyone heard of this lot?" I don't think that the bar for articles on political parties should be set too high - having one elected councillor will almost certainly generate enough references to ensure that the party can be considered notable (and I'd certainly consider that a good article could be written on the
424:, which has a number of councillors, although the current article doesn't really demonstrate this). Some other parties may be notable for unusual views, activity in trade unions or specific campaigns, or any number of other areas. But if nobody outside the party has troubled themselves to write even one line of prose on the party's views, it's not notable. Just possibly, there might be sufficient evidence in the local press which hasn't made it online, but based on what I've been able to find, it has to be a sad delete vote.
321:
mean that either every party or no party gets an article. "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. The primary criterion is multiple published works documenting the subject in depth from reliable and independent sources. Some parties satisfy that criterion, and
122:
Contested prod. Local independent parliamentary candidate standing as a "party" - almost no votes, no assertion of notability, not even any references to prove it actually happened. Every UK election throws up many hundreds of such "parties" which have little to distinguish themselves from each other
372:
notable. And no, as pointed out, that discussion isn't a discussion of notability. Here, we are discussing whether this subject warrants an article. And the criterion for that is whether this party has been documented in depth in multiple non-trivial published works from reliable and independent
493:
On the above discussion, I agree that the party should be on the _list_. I don't believe that it deserves its own _article_, especially not such a minimalistic one as we have at the moment. And this would apply to most of the parties at the bottom of the list, although a mass nomination probably
257:
One of WP's concept of notability must be about how long the list should be or the list would have been shortened no? You assert that the party is both 'tiny' and 'little', how little does the party have to be before it fails the notability test? To be consistent we could shorten the list to only
207:. No assertion of notability? The table for the 2005 election results states, 'This table indicates those parties with over 500 votes nationwide', there are 60 parties in the table not hundreds. British Public Party got over 500 votes. Please see discussion regarding notability
235:. The (very limited) discussion about notability you refer to is simply about some people's ideas of how long a list should be, not about WP's concepts of notability. Tiny little "parties" are almost certain to fail the notability test so let's at least see some substantial
294:
As I say above, the alternative would be to shorten the table to just those parties that have 1000 votes or more. We should also fairly apply the notability rational to all the other parties in the table and delete all those that don't have sources e.g.
528:
People sometimes wikify list entries with wild abandon. That doesn't mean that every entry on the list is a subject that qualifies for an article. (This is most commonly a problem with lists of people and characters.)
443:
115:
181:
Bear in mind that Boaks regularly changed the order of the words in the title of his candidatures, and never claimed to have a party, so the situation is somewhat different.
548:, no evidence of notability. I don't have a problem with including its name on a list of political parties, but there's nothing here that makes it deserve its own article.
469:
145:
per nom. The Public Safety
Democratic Monarchist White Resident party doesn't even have a redirect, and this - individual, I assume - is far less notable than the noble
385:
of
Knowledge (XXG) (which are published, by the way, and which are sources for articles such as the one that you point to), then that is all that it should garner
210:. I don't think there are sources for any of the constituency results for the 2005 elections but I don't think we should delete all of them! Please see article
390:
211:
88:
83:
92:
330:
to do with this discussion", moreover. How was it unclear? You also have the wrong idea of what speedy keeping is about. Your rationale is
75:
17:
393:. So not only have you not made a valid speedy keep rationale, you haven't even addressed the subject of notability at all.
572:
36:
557:
538:
523:
503:
484:
458:
433:
410:
347:
312:
289:
267:
252:
223:
190:
176:
158:
136:
57:
167:
article although I was well aware of him, as any democrat should be. I'm grateful to you for the reference. :)
394:
571:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
296:
79:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
333:
421:
378:
300:
273:
71:
63:
553:
429:
186:
322:
get articles. Some do not, and warrant no more than lines in election results tables, because that is
519:
308:
263:
248:
219:
172:
132:
549:
389:
Knowledge (XXG), and it doesn't warrant an article, merely a row in a table in an article such as
534:
499:
479:
453:
406:
360:
That is not a valid rationale. It's not a rationale for speedy keeping, and AFD is not about
343:
285:
154:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
425:
182:
232:
515:
304:
259:
244:
215:
168:
128:
276:
explains the criterion. Please read it. And the length of the list on the template has
124:
326:. You do not seem to have fully understood "the length of the list on the template has
53:
401:
are your arguments for notability. Boldfaced words and an invalid rationale aren't.
243:
pretence to notability. If not, then it must have been a party that no-one came to!
530:
495:
476:
450:
402:
339:
281:
150:
109:
381:. If the sole documentation for a party is a line in an election results table
258:
parties that received a 1000 votes or more but some other editors may disagree.
272:
Number of votes recieved is not the criterion. That is, in fact, irrelevant.
164:
146:
364:
notability. That's only what prevents certain classes of article from being
49:
511:
Bloody hell, that's the last time I work on the red link project :-( ,
303:
etc but this would seem overkill which is why I vote for speedy keep.
565:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
123:
and very few voters who take any notice of them. Err... that's
280:
to do with this discussion, which is about an article.
231:. This doesn't address the substantive issues raised in
208:
105:
101:
97:
444:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
368:deleted. Here, at AFD, we decide whether things
575:). No further edits should be made to this page.
317:We apply notability criteria fairly. That does
470:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
324:all that they have outside of Knowledge (XXG)
8:
214:for constituency the election relates to.
391:Ilford South (UK Parliament constituency)
212:Ilford South (UK Parliament constituency)
468:: This debate has been included in the
442:: This debate has been included in the
377:is what demonstrates notability, per
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
239:references to prove this party has
24:
1:
558:03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
58:14:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
539:23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
524:23:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
504:23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
485:22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
459:22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
434:23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
411:22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
348:23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
313:22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
290:22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
268:22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
253:22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
224:21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
191:23:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
177:21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
159:21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
137:21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
592:
379:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
274:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
297:UK Community Issues Party
568:Please do not modify it.
513:Tom walks away crying...
163:I didn't know about the
32:Please do not modify it.
494:isn't the way to go.
422:Local Community Party
301:Local Community Party
336:rationale in any way
72:British Public Party
64:British Public Party
487:
473:
461:
447:
583:
570:
482:
474:
464:
456:
448:
438:
113:
95:
34:
591:
590:
586:
585:
584:
582:
581:
580:
579:
573:deletion review
566:
480:
454:
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
589:
587:
578:
577:
561:
560:
543:
542:
541:
506:
488:
462:
436:
415:
414:
413:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
197:
196:
195:
194:
193:
120:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
588:
576:
574:
569:
563:
562:
559:
555:
551:
547:
544:
540:
536:
532:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
514:
510:
507:
505:
501:
497:
492:
489:
486:
483:
478:
471:
467:
463:
460:
457:
452:
445:
441:
437:
435:
432:
431:
427:
423:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
371:
367:
363:
362:assertions of
359:
349:
345:
341:
337:
335:
329:
325:
320:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
269:
265:
261:
256:
255:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
203:
202:
198:
192:
189:
188:
184:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
141:
140:
139:
138:
134:
130:
126:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
567:
564:
545:
512:
508:
490:
465:
439:
428:
417:
398:
395:Cite sources
386:
382:
374:
370:actually are
369:
365:
361:
331:
327:
323:
318:
277:
240:
236:
228:
204:
200:
199:
185:
142:
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
426:Warofdreams
334:speedy keep
201:Speedy Keep
183:Warofdreams
373:sources.
165:Bill Boaks
147:Commander
550:Terraxos
366:speedily
116:View log
531:Uncle G
509:Comment
496:Tevildo
491:Comment
477:the wub
451:the wub
403:Uncle G
383:outside
340:Uncle G
328:nothing
282:Uncle G
278:nothing
229:Comment
151:Tevildo
89:protect
84:history
546:Delete
418:Delete
387:inside
332:not a
233:WP:NOT
205:Delete
143:Delete
93:delete
46:Delete
399:Those
237:local
125:WP:NN
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
554:talk
535:talk
520:talk
500:talk
481:"?!"
466:Note
455:"?!"
440:Note
430:talk
407:talk
375:That
344:talk
309:talk
286:talk
264:talk
249:talk
245:andy
241:some
220:talk
187:talk
173:talk
169:andy
155:talk
133:talk
129:andy
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
50:Fram
516:Tom
475:--
472:.
449:--
446:.
397:.
319:not
305:Tom
299:,
260:Tom
216:Tom
114:– (
556:)
537:)
522:)
502:)
409:)
346:)
338:.
311:)
288:)
266:)
251:)
222:)
175:)
157:)
149:.
135:)
127:.
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
552:(
533:(
518:(
498:(
405:(
342:(
307:(
284:(
262:(
247:(
218:(
171:(
153:(
131:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.