245:: if this ever was an active political party its time has passed. It certainly was a one-issue platform. The title of the party and the manifesto seemd to suggest a wider significance, but this never came to fruition. The 'fixed-link' debate on the Isle of Wight is probably notable enough in itself to merit an article - for a very thick-skinned editor to write - and in the unlikely event that this ever occurred the contents of the article under discussion would merit a place in that article. But it cannot stand alone.
200:
For the most part, I would say "Wight on!" but I'm confused about the suggestion that www.parliament.uk isn't a relable source. Still, the article itself doesn't indicate that this party was notable, other than for being a registered political party that was on the ballot. From what I understand,
221:
My apologies for not being clearer regarding my assertion that no reliable, independent, and secondary sources exist on the Isle of Wight Party. www.parliament.uk is a reliable website, which is independent, and secondary. However, the website is offering trivial coverage of the Isle of Wight
147:
back in 2001, and I have found no evidence that the party has been active since. Also, the candidate fielded during that election by this party only gained 1.8% of the vote, and I have found no evidence that the candidate is in of himself notable. As a result, I do not agree that this party is
143:. I imagine that some people may be thinking “Any political party is notable”, and I understand that viewpoint. However, this party's activity began at the start of the campaigning season of a parliamentary constituency election in the
294:
even suggests the founder isn't even a resident anymore, and I can't find current registration information in the
Electoral Commission's database. If there is a tradition of occasional regionalist parties,
132:
263:
290:: Apart from the little bits of bureaucratic cruft leftover from a single electoral bid, there's nothing on this party, apart from the Knowledge article.
139:
I have not been able to find any reliable, independent, and secondary sources on the Isle of Wight Party. As a result, I believe that the article breaks
166:
looks a lot like a single issue - single person party. And now he's bored with it too. For a party to be notable it has to have an organisation I think.
204:
to set threshhold requirements for inherent notability. I don't think that, based on what is state in the article, this party would be notable.
99:
94:
103:
86:
17:
226:, trivial coverage in one reliable, independent, and secondary source is not usually enough to make a subject notable.
62:
308:
281:
253:
235:
213:
192:
175:
157:
68:
323:
36:
291:
322:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
90:
231:
188:
153:
82:
74:
276:
250:
209:
202:
227:
149:
171:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
270:
201:
parties aren't inherently notable (i.e., open to debate) although there have been proposals
56:
304:
246:
205:
144:
167:
120:
223:
184:
140:
50:
300:
316:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
127:
116:
112:
108:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
326:). No further edits should be made to this page.
264:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
8:
262:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
148:notable. Thank you for reading.
299:could be subject of an article.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
309:17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
282:18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
254:11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
236:20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
214:20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
193:20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
176:20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
158:19:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
69:19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
343:
319:Please do not modify it.
222:Party, and according to
32:Please do not modify it.
83:Isle of Wight Party
75:Isle of Wight Party
44:The result was
284:
267:
67:
334:
321:
279:
273:
268:
258:
183:as per MadScot.
130:
124:
106:
65:
59:
53:
49:
34:
342:
341:
337:
336:
335:
333:
332:
331:
330:
324:deletion review
317:
277:
271:
126:
97:
81:
78:
63:
57:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
340:
338:
329:
328:
312:
311:
285:
256:
240:
239:
238:
195:
178:
137:
136:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
339:
327:
325:
320:
314:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
289:
286:
283:
280:
274:
265:
261:
257:
255:
252:
248:
244:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:JEdgarFreeman
225:
220:
217:
216:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
161:
160:
159:
155:
151:
150:JEdgarFreeman
146:
145:Isle of Wight
142:
134:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
60:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
318:
315:
296:
287:
259:
242:
218:
197:
180:
163:
138:
45:
43:
31:
28:
272:Fabrictramp
292:One letter
278:talk to me
247:Naturenet
206:Mandsford
133:View log
64:contribs
219:Comment
198:Comment
168:MadScot
100:protect
95:history
288:Delete
243:Delete
185:Stifle
181:Delete
164:delete
128:delete
104:delete
52:seicer
46:delete
301:Avram
131:) – (
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
305:talk
297:that
260:Note
251:Talk
232:talk
224:WP:N
210:talk
189:talk
172:talk
154:talk
141:WP:N
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
58:talk
269:--
266:.
307:)
275:|
249:|
234:)
212:)
191:)
174:)
156:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
61:|
55:|
48:.
303:(
230:(
208:(
187:(
170:(
152:(
135:)
125:(
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.