Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Scotland Party (3rd nomination)

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. The one "keep" does not address the sourcing / notability issue. Sandstein 07:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free Scotland Party

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving votes in the elections they have stood in and barely any notable coverage before or after general elections. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe. Fails WP:N. Angryskies (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of importance and notability in article. Sources indicate proof of existence rather than support of notability. doktorb _words^deeds 21:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and insufficient notability in sources. --Micky (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since previous nomination was withdrawn. Deletion will mean that anyone reading about the elections in which it stood will be able to find out from Wikipedia about the major parties, which they probably know anyway, but nothing about the small ones. Read an article; be none the wiser! The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide knowledge, especially when that is not available anywhere else. Emeraude (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to comment that if this article should be kept, then surely the recently deleted Scottish Family Party article (which is still a registered party with the Electoral Commission) should have been kept too if there is going to be consistency with smaller political parties on Wikipedia? There is a lot more recent news coverage from reliable sources WP:RS about the Scottish Family Party than the Free Scotland Party. The Scottish Family Party discussion can is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scottish_Family_Party

Weak delete. There was clearly some local coverage of the party from the sources used in the page. Unfortunately, these are no longer easily visible to assess the significance of; though based on the material in the article these sources support it seems unlikely that they represent in-depth coverage of the party. There is also some book coverage, but this appears to amount to: the party represented a more extreme form of nationalism than the SNP, it was founded by Nugent, it opposed membership of the European Union. I don't think that adds up to significant coverage as required by the GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2020 (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.