Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and Progress 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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. -- Banjeboi 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Peace and Progress Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Another of the parties that I feel should be either deleted from Wikipedia as non-notable, or at the very least merged into a "Minor British political parties" article. The party has made no notable electoral impact at any level, and has been listed with a notability notice for about 17 months. Therefore I feel it should be rolled in with the other parties I've nominated (and possibly a few others who have a stray councilor or two somewhere) in a minor parties article or dropped entirely.Tyrenon (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a quick search on Google News turns up plenty of news coverage, some international. Although the party made little impact, I believe this coverage, combined with the presence of several notable people in the party leadership, is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Warofdreams talk 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The only notable people seem to have been the Redgraves, from what I can tell (as the Chris Cooper listed does not seem to be any of the people listed on the disambiguation page). Therefore, would a merge into their article make sense?Tyrenon (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We also have articles on Moazzam Begg, who was apparently a member of the steering committee, and on Babar Ahmad, who was a party candidate - while a lot of the coverage did revolve around the Redgraves' involvement, I think that the party was more than just them. Warofdreams talk 16:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think an entry on the page of one or both of the Redgraves is more appropriate. To the extent that the party did anything notable, it seems to have been a vehicle for the Redgraves' political activities, and I think it should be treated as such.Tyrenon (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We also have articles on Moazzam Begg, who was apparently a member of the steering committee, and on Babar Ahmad, who was a party candidate - while a lot of the coverage did revolve around the Redgraves' involvement, I think that the party was more than just them. Warofdreams talk 16:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep P&P were nominated in more than just one constituency and thier members have their own notability. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But this feels borderline to me, could go either way on it.SallyRide (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep significant coverage in reliable sources establishing notability per the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn after some discussion with another user, though I may bring this up again in the future (after some hammering-out is done on UK party guidelines, which do seem to be at least vaguely in the works).Tyrenon (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (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.