Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOS! Voters Against Overdevelopment of Northampton

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 Placebo Effect (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOS! Voters Against Overdevelopment of Northampton

The text is misleading: this represents just two people contesting two seats in one General Election. Although it is rare for such people to get votes into triple figures, it is still not notable. There is no evidence that there is any real "party" behind these votes and even if there were, the name suggests clearly, that it would only be of local interest. (Tom, the best thing would have been to leave the name in Template:United Kingdom parliamentary election, 2005 but unlink it. They are registered but have no website.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See the detailed discussion of micro-party notability at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Public_Party. andy (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may like to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Independence Party before that. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. docboat (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - however, it might be an idea to formulate a general guideline for the notability of political parties (in the UK, at least), rather than dealing with them on a case-by-case basis. For example, The Community Group (London Borough of Hounslow) has several local councillors (and is therefore more significant than this party) but its article has the "Notability" tag and it may arrive at AfD before long. Would Talk:List of political parties in the United Kingdom be an appropriate venue? Tevildo (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need anything more specific than the PNC. Any other sort of rule, such as numbers of votes, numbers of candidates, or numbers of members, will operate badly in practice. Covering the parties inside Wikipedia to the same extent that they are covered outside of Wikipedia (a row in a results table in an article giving election results for a constituency, if that is all that a party has outside of Wikipedia) really is the best approach. That's what the PNC gets us. If there are multiple published works from independent and reliable sources documenting the party in depth, it gets an article, because using those as sources we can write a full article, verifiably, neutrally, and without original research. If no such works exist, then we only have the sources, the bare election result statistics published by news agencies and the like, for filling in rows in an election results table. This requires looking at each case individually, on its own merits. Notability is not a blanket. Human knowledge is uneven. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 9 January 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.