Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restore Scotland

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 redirect to 2021 Scottish Parliament election#Parties. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties. Has failed to prove notability, if indeed it is. No viable, credible coverage, article reads largely as promotion. No credible election results, no election won, no notable figures, politicians or other persons associated with them. Formerly CSD tagged. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the scotsman appears to be reliable and is cited in the article, likely would contribute to GNG. thenational.scot no consensus on RSPS, article paywalled, might give significant coverage. Other reliable sources was not found by my search, article may meet GNG if the thenational.scot is considered a reliable source. Justiyaya 10:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It got quite a bit of coverage in Dundee, partly because Ewan Gurr, who has a considerable local, profile stood in Dundee City West. However I think in terms of national impact its impression is questionable. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A party that has once put candidates forward in a national election and in that one election gathered fewer than 0.05% of the vote is below my personal notability/significance bar for political parties. But it sounds from the above discussion that there might be enough sources with detail on the party to justify an article on the basis of raw media coverage: The Scotsman, for a start, is definitely a solid RS. Dunarc: are you confident of the existence of other RSes? What would they be: local Dundee papers? — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly in the printed editions of the Courier and Evening Telegraph there was coverage - online I can find https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/2159185/ewan-gurr-joe-fitzpatrick/ - However I am not sure that that is enough and there is also the issue that Ewan Gurr writes for both newspapers. Dunarc (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That article is really a profile of Gurr and a presentation of his candidacy as a battle-of-personalities. It's not really great for building an article on Restore Scotland. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2021 Scottish Parliament election#Parties - In the absence of decent coverage of their platform in secondary sources, I think a party that has only participated in one election, polled very low nationally, and won no seats under a PR system doesn't reach the notability bar for me. We do have a reasonable redirect target, however, and if the party competes in the next election, the case for their inclusion will strengthen. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Redirect - The redirect proposal outlined above seems to me a sensible way to proceed for now. It can be revisited in the future if the party were to gain a higher level of notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator I would support redirect doktorb _words^deeds 22:25, 11 January 2022 (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.