Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensioners Party (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 'Merge'd to Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pensioners Party (Scotland)

Unlike the other party mentioned in this artile, the Pensioners Party are a failed non-notable group with no elected representation and no sign of political activity in years. There is currently a Notability policy discussion relating to our policy on political parties which I believe this party would fail. doktorb _words^deeds 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information I direct authors and admins to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Imperial_Party_(UK). The idea that one failed candidature is notable has been tested before. This is not my attempt to use WP:STUFF but I would like to bring another similiar deletion discussion in for context doktorb _words^deeds 11:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep if this might fail according to a proposed guideline, at least wait until the guideline gets adopted. DGG (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I declined the prod on this. "Might fail a proposed guideline" isn't a legitimate deletion reason; under current guidelines, a party which has fought elections will have received press coverage and be verifiable. – iride scent 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have stood in barely a half-dozen elections, and show no signs of active campaigning in about a year at least. doktorb _words^deeds 17:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this ssems to assert notability, but needs refs. A guidline for political parties needs to be created. I'll bring this up at the VP RedThunder 12:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. Per Iridescent. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Mais oui! (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The party no longer appears to be registered at the Electoral Commission. There is a registration for "The Pensioners Party" and "Pensions Actions Alliance" but both of these were recorded in 2004 (after the Scottish elections) and are only registered for elections in England. As such it appears unlikely that the article will be able to grow much further beyond its current stub status (it may even shrink if adequate sources are not found). I would therefore recommend creating an article on Defunct political parties of the United Kingdom and merging any sourced material into that article. Alternatively the sourced material could be merged with Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party as the bulk of the existing stub is a description of their alliance with the SSCUP. Road Wizard (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep --MacRusgail (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not currently verifiable or notable due to lack of references where they count, i.e., in the article. Sandstein 08:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - party has stood in past elections, and the article is linked to from a number of pages. The article is relavent, would benefit far more from stub status looking to expand rather than deletion. GullibleKit (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - This BBC article describes it as the "sister party" of the SSCUP; that party is notable and should be the place to briefly mention this party. Not enough evidence of notability for its own article; barely any sources give more than the election results of the party. This subscription-only article seems to cover the party's launch, if anyone can access it, it might be a useful source. Warofdreams talk 09:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge somewhere. This party verifiably existed. Continued existence is not required. In fact, by being historical, it is more important to keep the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 30 August 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.