Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Jacobite 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Jacobite Party

Non notable political party which has never stood for election. Further more the party no longer exist (see http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/63167/Renamed-or-Deregistered-Parties.pdf doktorb _words^deeds 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question- The last AFD closed only 3 days ago as a Keep. Why is the issue being re-opened?Umbralcorax (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same Question. You beat me to it, edit conflict. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as improper use of AfD for rapidly repeated nomination. BTW, it apparently did run candidates in an election. they did not do well, but any party which actually runs candidates should have an article. DGG (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claim that the subject of an article no longer exists is never grounds for deletion. Once notable, always notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. A very, very clear case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally disagree. I cannot find any proof that they have stood in elections, and even if this is the case, they have failed to do the very basic thing thought of parties - WIN. Further, they are no longer registered, so on notability grounds, they clearly are not. With all respect to the process, and I trust my record shows responsibility and respect to the project, this is surely a case of policy blindness. doktorb _words^deeds 20:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The fact is that we have a source that proves they were registered. This should at a minimum be a redirect to the list of political parties in Scotland. Whether or not we keep/merge/redirect/whatever should be sorted out on the talk page, this isn't a cause for deletion. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply We have a source that they are now DE-registered doktorb _words^deeds 21:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But being de-registered doesn't matter. As I said above, once notable, always notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and WP:SNOW. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NOTE. Has nominated candidates in a national election. Don't see the problem here. --North North-West (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I must disclose that I started the last AfD discussion and I will readily concede that I think it's too soon to start up a new discussion, I still feel that this is a case of a minor party which had little impact, electorally or socially (unlike the Loonies, who can be argued to have had some impact electorally and made a lot of waves socially).Tyrenon (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above by many others. Ohms law (talk) 04:03, 17 June 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.