Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride in Paisley Party

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. Wizardman 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pride in Paisley Party

Convert PROD to AfD as described on Talk:Pride in Paisley Party: Non-notable political party: only contested one election, where it received 1% of the vote, and made no press coverage or lasting impact. Political party notability is not yet at a Wikipedia-consensus. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Political Parties...3F for some editor's opinions of what is and is not notable in a political party. I replaced the PROD with an AfD to help stimulate discussion on notability of minor political parties in cases where Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and related policies don't provide clear guidance. This is not a vote. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as the user who originally placed the PROD). I'm not clear on what the specific notability requirements of political parties should be, but this one definitely does not strike me as notable, for the reasons quoted above. Terraxos (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, I am one of the editors hoping to flesh out a political parties notability policy, and this is one party which would struggle. They have not stood in many elections, and in the one they have stood in, got barely 1% of the vote. Cannot find them in the Scottish Parliament elections, for example. Not notable in the grand scheme of either Scottish or British elections.doktorb _words^deeds 00:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who needs notability, where are the sources? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no sign of notability. rootology (T) 05:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paisley and Renfrewshire South (UK Parliament constituency). All the information in this stub is repeated from there (there are sources but, annoyingly, neither article cites them.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This stub has existed since 2006, hence a redirect may be useful to preserve incoming links from the outside world (and links in WP's history.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Hroðulf - of slight interest only in relation to standing in the constituency. Warofdreams talk 12:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Here is a telling source: [1] zero campaign expenditure in 2005. I will add a source for the results to the constituency article .--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:44, 28 May 2008 (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.