User talk:Doktorbuk/pp

I'm not sure whether being officially registered isn't enough claim to notability in SOME countries. While it's apparently very easy to register as a party in the UK, it's a lot harder in other countries, and having successfully registered may alone be a certain claim to notability -- on the other hand, those parties which do manage to do that would usually achieve notability through some other clause, as well, I expect.

Another point is how successful a party has to be at contesting elections -- a party which achieves even half a percent may be notable in some countries (like Austria) which have a very rigid party system, i.e. where even 0.5% of the vote can be a substantial vote of confidence for completely new parties.

Just my first €0.02. — Nightstallion 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...laying down hurdles is problematic (what's the threshold: 1%? 5%? 10%? Is that in one election, several, or several combined?). It may be better to sidestep a threshold and deal with unsuccessful parties under a "otherwise notable" clause (see below). regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift reply! Yeah, this is very "broad brush" because I just cannot find a standard policy, so if we have the bones now, the flesh can be added. On the topic of registration, I guess I am looking from a UK perspective, so it would be interesting to hear how it is done elsewhere, and whether the ease in the UK has any baring on the notability policy. At the mo, "registration ≠ notabilty" where I stand, but this could change. On the subject of electoral success, again it's from the UK perspctive I view this. The "Alliance For Change" may not be the best off-the-top-of-my-head example, but they did pretty ropy in elections, but does constant apperance on the ballot paper in any case give them some kind of notability? Remember, we have the Election Box Metada things which require, to some extent, articles to exist whether it's Liberal Democrats or Beauties For Britain....doktorb wordsdeeds 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good start to me. Criterion 3 (history) is pretty vague, but I suppose that's the point - it's impossible to give a strict definition of 'an indisputable, clear, and certain importance in a nation's cultural/social history', but it should most of the time be clear whether or not it applies. The rest are all fairly reasonable, but here are a few points worth considering in more detail:
 * Point 4, the Person Clause: is an otherwise non-notable political party notable solely because it is associated with/founded by a notable person? For example, the Peace and Progress Party is notable only because it was founded by Vanessa Redgrave - is this sufficient for notability?
 * Similarly, point 2, the Lineage Clause: is a party notable solely because it claims to be the successor of an older notable party? For example, are the New Nationalist Party (United Kingdom) and UK Freedom Party notable because they are splinter parties of the BNP?
 * Lastly, point 1: we should consider whether this extends to local councils (or their equivalent in other countries). At the moment, I'm assuming it wouldn't apply - so presumably, a party isn't necessarily notable just because it's won seats on a local council (e.g.: the Derwentside Independents, the For Darwen Party)?

Overall though, I think this looks good, and would support making it a draft policy. (The examples I gave all come from Category:Political parties in the United Kingdom, which once this policy has been worked out, would be a good place to start applying it.) Terraxos (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for the reply. I am just about to go off-line, alas, but you make a good point about the local council parties such as For Darwen, which are an offshoot of England First. I will have a think and get back to you doktorb wordsdeeds 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Point 4; I'd argue that the Peace and Progress Party is notable solely because it was founded by Vanessa Redgrave, although it is not necessarily notable enough to stop the article being merged with Vanessa (if that makes sense).
 * Point 2: I'd argue that the New Nationalist Party (United Kingdom) and UK Freedom Party are notable if they are the de jure/de facto successors of the BNP, thus moving the burden of proof to the demonstration of de jure/de facto succession. Although it would be easier to scrap this clause entirely.
 * Point 1: I agree it should be extended to tertiary assemblies.
 * Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need to admit here is that political parties have a very differnt dynamic than other social and economic organizations. A very small party should not be compared with a very small company. A local pizzeria with 4-5 employees is not notable, but a very numerically small political organization can still have some degree of notability. We need to separate between between hoaxes/spoofs/jokes on one hand and serious organizations on the other. --Soman (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree -- regional and local parties can be notable, of course, for instance through continuous success in elections or through the influence of the locale where they are successfully active. — Nightstallion 23:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on the suggestions
Hi, doktorb: thanks for the message. Hmmm...I agree with your suggestions, but they'll need rewording, especially the history clause. You'll also need an eternity clause.


 * 1) The Electoral Clause – Political parties who currently sit, or have sat, in the national or regional parliament should be regarded as notable.
 * - Yep, slam-dunk. Easy call. But do you want to limit it to national/regional parliaments. And what's the definition of "sits"? And what's the definition of "parliament"?


 * 1) The Lineage Clause – A party which is the precursor or successor to existing political parties are notable, although any article should contain enough material to avoid being merged into its "parent"/"child".
 * - Hmmmm....On the whole I'm OK with this clause, but please note it's open to abuse - what's the definition of "predecessor" or "successor" in this context? Also, it should be "notable political parties".


 * 1) The History Clause – Whilst some parties have had electoral representation for hundreds of years, some may (and here I mention Monster Raving Loony Party for a notable UK example) have had an indesputiable, clear, and certain importance in a nation's cultural/social history, and should be regarded as notable. This will also include notable pressure groups, for example, who may not be electorally active.
 * - Oh mama, this could go badly wrong. You need to scrap this entirely and replace with a "Otherwise Notable clause"


 * 1) The Person Clause – A notable person, that is a person who has an article on Wikipedia, who has launched or helped create, a party may assist the argument that that party can have a stand-alone article.
 * - ...or it may not . You may want to reword this...or more accurately, you need to reword this to remove the "may".


 * 1) The Not-Notable Clause – An entry in a nation's Register Of Political Parties is NOT evidence enough that they are notable, nor is the evidence of less than an agreed amount of failed candidates across a number of elections.
 * - Agreed - tho' I'd split into two clauses and reword the latter.

So the reworded version looks like this:


 * 1) The Electoral Clause – A party which has been elected to an assembly of members divided by parties is notable.
 * 2) The Lineage Clause – A party which is the de jure/de facto precursor of, or de jure/de facto successor to, a notable party is notable.
 * 3) The Person Clause - A party formed by a notable entity is notable.
 * 4) The Registration Insufficiency Clause - The fact that a party has registered as a party is not enough for that party to be deemed as notable.
 * 5) The Failure Insufficiency Clause - The fact that a party has fielded unsuccessful candidates is not enough for that party to be deemed as notable.
 * 6) The Otherwise Notable Clause - A party which fails notability due to the above criteria, but passes other notability criteria (e.g. cultural/social importance, etc.), is notable.
 * 7) The Standalone Clause - The fact that article "A" is about a party deemed to be notable is not enough to prevent article "A" being merged into another article if article "A" fails other criteria (e.g. not enough info, or lack of reliable sources, etc.) for having its own article.
 * 8) The Eternity Clause - A party which was notable due to the above criteria remains notable.

Hope that helps, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, you have noticed that this was a very "broad brush" attempt, so I am grateful for your considered responses.
 * I think the "electoral clause" is fairly clear and obvious. For "sits", yeah, "elected or appointed to an assembly" is what I mean, so your clause would be fine. The problem we have is with the extent of "assembly" - national, no argument, but regional? What is a notable regional party in, say, Germany, may not be comparative with a "regional" level group from, pfff, South Africa. That said, I think we can probably agree on the intent and basic content of clause 1 already.
 * The "person clause" is the one giving me a bit of concern. As has been mentioned above, the article on Vanessa Redgrave could just have her party article merged into it, if it cannot be proven that the party has had a social/cultural/political "impact" or notable electoral success. Let's think about Reg Keys' Spectre (political party) for one other example here.
 * I am happy with your "Otherwise notable clause". This will help with, amongst others, For Darwen and Idle Toad. The "standalong clause" should be the "without prejudice to WP:N clause", given what has been mentioned above regarding the special nature of political party.

Just getting ready for work now, so when I get back tonight I will take a look at the other feedback here, and edit the policy for the first time with the collected opinions and whatever other thoughts. I think we could have a draft policy within a couple of weeks doktorb wordsdeeds 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd like to amend article 4 and 5.
 * 4. The Registration Insufficiency Clause - The fact that a party has registered as a party is by itself not enough for that party to be deemed as notable, unless registration is usually difficult to attain in the country or region in question.
 * 5. The Failure Insufficiency Clause - The fact that a party has fielded unsuccessful candidates is by itself not enough for that party to be deemed as notable, but having fielded a very large number of candidates (in constituency systems) or having attained a substantial portion of the vote (while failing to get any members elected) is sufficient.
 * Okay? — Nightstallion 13:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but you can solidify the wording as follows
 * "unless registration is usually difficult to attain in the country or region in question" can be replaced by "unless that registration was difficult to obtain" (you're not going to register in the country not in question, and you wouldn't disqualify notability on the grounds that it was unusually difficult to obtain) and
 * "but having fielded a very large number of candidates (in constituency systems) or having attained a substantial portion of the vote (while failing to get any members elected) is sufficient." can be replaced by "but having fielded a substantial proportion of the candidates, or having attained a substantial proportion of the vote, is sufficient" (how big is a "very large number", and what is the definition of a "portion" in this context?).
 * Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need specifc criteria about parties, but if we decide differently I will support Soktorburk's suggestions. Anyway a few parties will not fit one of the five clauses proposed by Doktorbuk and few articles will be deleted on the new rules. Regarding Italy, the country where I live, I wouldn't oppose the deletion of articles about parties such as the National Democratic Party (Italy), Italy Again, Moderate Italy, United Pensioners and many other small parties whose articles are available at Category:Political parties in Italy or in Template:Italian political parties in 2007. Would you agree? --Checco (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Checco's problem is partially easily solved:


 * 9. Alliance Clause A party which is a formal ally of a party that meets the electoral clause is notable, although any article should contain enough material to avoid being merged into its founder/co-founder. This includes all parties that are formal and full members of international party federations or parties at the European level.
 * C mon (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In Italy there are many unrelevant parties which would fit your categorization... I don't know, a rule like this could be like having no rules at all, and maybe this is the best solution... --Checco (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not so sure about the phrasing of the Alliance Clause, as Checco says, it would be like having no rule at all. The Italian situation is, it seems, characteristically confused (and I mean that with all due respect). This shows the problems, I suppose with having such fluidity in the arena of political parties. I will have a think about that clause and get back to you. I think we can agree on the electoral clause, with a minor rewrite to take into account what has been written above....doktorb wordsdeeds 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be careful here...if you have a lineage clause (a party is notable if it is the pre/successor of a notable party) and an alliance clause (a party is notable if it is allied in some fashion with a notable party), then you're allowing notability to descend forward, back and sideways. Under those rules it'll be possible for virtually any party to achieve notability on a six-degrees-of-separation basis. You may be best advised to lose the lineage and alliance clauses totally. I think I'm correct in saying that under Wikipedia rules, being the parent/child/sibling of a notable person does not make that person notable - the rationale being that notability unchecked will eventually render everybody notable. Similarly, allowing political party notability to descend thru the parent/child (lineage) or sibling (alliance) lines may eventually render nearly every political party notable. I would not object to such an outcome (bless my inclusionist soul) per se but the effects would render your clauses moot. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You see, the overlap here is dangerously close to some rather insestuous consequences heh. A party is notable if they have been elected, but not necessarily notable if they just in alliance...Oh my, this could get very messy doktorb wordsdeeds 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm thinking too much about Italy, and don't worry about calling Italian politics chaotic: it IS chaotic! --Checco (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For New Zealand we seem to have a policy that if a party was registered, applied for broadcasting funding or ran candidates (even unsuccessfully) it is notable enough for inclusion. But we have less than two dozen parties active at any one time (with five or six appearing and disappearing at each election), so its relatively easy to keep track of. IdiotSavant (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that fits my amendment of 4., since registration is not that trivially easy in NZ. — Nightstallion 12:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, cheers to both. So I think we can agree without any probs on the first main clause - a party has to be sitting in a parliament. I think the New Zealand sto..example is interesting, because any registration clause can have a suitable caveat. I am unsure about the coalition example from Italy, as has been said, it may over-ride all other rules. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

@Nightstallion: Do you agree on the fact that, under the new rules, some of the articles about Italian political parties you created should be deleted? --Checco (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, yes. — Nightstallion 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

State of Play
As I see it now...


 * 1) We have a "clause 1" agreed. Political parties are notable if they are represented in an elected or appointed national or regional assembly.
 * 2) We have, essentially, a "non notable notability" clause - a party are notable if, after 2* years of active campaigning and candidature without success, it can be proven that they have a constant, credible, and long-term aims for political campaigning.
 * 3) There is a question over how many candidates such a party should nominate for them to satisfy this "non notable notability" clause (Money Reform Party, now merged, had just the one. Monster Raving Loonies have had hundreds, for context).
 * 4) We think that parties formed by notable people could be notable (although, say, Reg Keys' Spectre is one example where this doesn't agree, but Spectre doesnt satisfy our "non notable notability" clause). Look at Robert Kilroy-Silk's Veritas - they're still putting candidates forward.
 * 5) There is a question mark over a "coalition clause", which may help in places like Italy, but may also act as a "rule to over-ride all rules".

* This is my suggestion - if it can be proven that a party has been going for 2 years, with campaigning and/or electoral activity, without success, then I think that is enough proven work for our purposes.

doktorb wordsdeeds 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. — Nightstallion 09:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally thinhk your criteria are over-stringent. I would also be interested in your opinion on parties with representation in multiple third tier bodies; the IWCA is a possible example. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jonathan. The IWCA have not been mentioned before, but Idle Toad and others have in passing. Yes, the current proposals are "tight", but Wiki has to have some control over its content, notability cannot be claimed by everyone, as I am sure you appriciate. Actually I think IWCA are fine, as they satisfy the "non notability notability" clause (I have GOT to come up with a new name for that ;)) in that they have been consistantly and constantly campaigning for at least 2 years as well as their electoral activities. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying the need for some control, just suggesting that your current proposals are too tight. Idle Toad seems to me a good example of the sort of thing which wikipedia should cover (Wiki is not paper), though I guess they also meet your "non notability notability" clause? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What is sure is that these rules are not tight and, maybe, that's good! However IWCA should be definitely included, even if this means that almost no article about an Italian party is up to deletion. In the end, I continue to think that we don't need any rules, especially if they are so loose. --Checco (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm rather late to the discussion here, but I really like doktorb's proposed clause 1 ("democratic representation") and 2 ("enduring activity"). How can we define active? We need evidence that they have undertaken genuine activity. I suggest that evidence a party has issued publications, stood in elections or retained elected representatives in any democratic body over a period of a minimum of two years would qualify. Maintaining a website or remaining a registered party in a state where there are no requirements for a minimum level of support or activity would not suffice. A minimum number of candidates may not be the answer - some parties, mostly on the far left, do not prioritise electoral activity, and may instead churn out large amounts of propaganda and primarily be active in trade unions or assorted campaigns.

Meanwhile, I don't believe that merely being formed by a notable individual is enough. If a party does not meet clause 1 or 2, then I'd rather see the information merged into the article on the individual. Warofdreams talk 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm (updated)
So, erm, what now? — Nightstallion 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'vr just come back from a week's camping holiday, heh, so let me get my head straight and I'll get back onto it :) doktorb wordsdeeds 11:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, no problem! :) — Nightstallion 11:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have taken some of the debate from here to the main page if people want to take a look doktorb wordsdeeds 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And how does this translate into top/high/medium/low importance in practice? As someone who's adding politicla parties to the project, that's primarily what I'm interested in.  --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In short, there is no policy on the notability of political parties on Wiki. For now, it seems, a lot of very minor parties and groups are on here when, perhaps, they don't have the notability to really be on here. Now we have WP:N but nothing specifically on political parties. This is our attempt to fix that! Once we can agree on the main clauses, I have suggested that we now take it to a "higher level" and have it accepted as official Wiki policy. If you can help out, please do! doktorb wordsdeeds 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Doktorbuk's work is very laudable, but I still think that we don't need any particular policy on political parties' notability. --Checco (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the evidence that we may need a policy are the variety of different conclusions to AfDs on similar articles. In addition, there are a large number of short articles on political parties which are verifiable but may or may not be notable, and it is difficult to apply current criteria to determine which should be focussed on for expansion, and which (if any) are marginal and should be merged elsewhere or removed altogether.  For myself, I really like the current proposal, and would just suggest changing the Electoral Clause to end "...or having attained a substantial portion of the vote (while failing to get any members elected) is sufficient." to "...or having attained a substantial portion of the vote (whether or not any members have been elected) is sufficient." Warofdreams talk 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. We should be capitalising "Wikipedia", though. — Nightstallion 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just dropping by to affirm that this notability guideline is definitely needed and I trust the community to iron out a smooth and unambiguous version. Looks like good progress so far. JJB 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have looked through the proposed criteria and the Electoral clause looks good. I am not too happy with the 2 year activity clause though. As an example, a two candidate party stands at a UK local council election in 2009 but doesn't gain a substantial number of votes or any seats. The same party fields the same two candidates at a UK general election in 2010 but again fail to gain a substantial proportion of the vote or any seats. They have been campaigning in elections for 2 years, but are they notable?
 * I am also not too sure about the Lineage clause. Except in the case of a party rebranding itself, new parties are often formed by the old party splitting into two or two parties merging into one. Are both child parties or both parent parties automatically given notability because the combined party was notable? If the child or parent party does not have sufficient notability in its own right I would suggest that it should be merged with its notable relative.
 * Is it possible to make this guideline region/country specific? If a one-size-fits-all approach does not work (as reference to Italy) then should there be a parallel guideline for countries with a much more fluid party system (I am not too sure, but I think I read somewhere that India has a volatile party system too)? Road Wizard (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Road Wizard, always handy to get more points across. As I think I mentioned on a talk page on the groupings in the European Parliament, politics is so "fluid" that strict guidelines will always be tough to set. On the point about the 2 year rule, I fully accept what you say (the Miss Great Beauties For Britain lot seem to be on the verge of becoming such a group) but I wonder if they will fall because they're not exactly campaigning, and I think we have a failed candidates policy anyway (or we should!). On the parent/child point, again I fully accept the point, but I think we'll be alright in the UK (the fringe groups falling from, say, the BNP haven't done much notable campaigning by our mark, but the results of the Liberal/SDP merger seem to have done). You do make a very interesting point about regional specific policies, which is something I did consider. Maybe this is something we can open out to the wider community by moving this policy away from my userspace, because it seems fresh eyes are finding new ideas? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Table format
I have added a table to the main page in an attempt to consolidate the points covered by the discussion. It allows the proposed clauses to be seen at the same time as the known issues and the potential solutions. Hopefully this will make it easier for people commenting later on in the process to understand what has gone before. Road Wizard (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Alliance Clause and One Man Bands
I know I'm coming to this discussion very late but it seems remarkably open. Quite apart from what a "formal ally" actually means in some systems, especially those where it's impossible to formally register an alliance (beyond a ballot description which can be confusing in itself), there are some parties that are formally coalitions of all manner of small groups. For instance the British Labour Party has historically allowed affiliation by small parties, with the Independent Labour Party being perhaps the best known but not the only one, and other parties like Respect – The Unity Coalition and Scottish Socialist Party have also had this set-up, incorporating all manner of micro-parties with no other claim to notability.

Also because of the way modern British election law requires a formally registered party if a candidate is to have anything other than "Independent" on the ballot paper there are a ridiculous amount of registered political parties that are really nothing more than a branding mechanism for one or two serial fringe candidates. And prior to 1998 the register didn't exist and a candidate could use any description they liked - indeed some deliberately confusing labels like "Literal Democrat", "Conversative Party" and "New Labour" were used, sometimes by unconnected individuals on different occasions without any form of co-ordination. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tim for that, and yes, just when I thought everything was going fine....
 * The alliance/grouping issue is tricky. I guess for the purposes of Wiki, if a group within, say, Respect, is just one-man-and-his-newspaper stall, then that group will have a little mention in the main article but not stand-alone. But this is UK-centric, I do not know if the European style coalitions and lists will work under our proposals?
 * If it is not already clear, then I hope we can agree that "registration ≠ notability" doktorb wordsdeeds 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Registration Clause
Having thought about the issues with the registation clause, I wonder if it could be merged into the campaigning thread? For if it's dead easy to register (like in the UK) then there will be countless attemps by people to keep articles based just on registeration (see Money Reform Party, et. al). If we can prove that a party can be registered easily (like the UK heh), but without much evidence of campaigning, then the merged clause would ensure that the party are notable if they have been elected to an assembly, proven campaigners etc. Keeping the registration separate may give it undue prominance. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You could always create articles named Minor Parties of Foo (e.g. Minor Parties of the United Kingdom). The article would contain all minor party entries for that country, which would range from a single sourced sentence like "Foo Party was registered in 2008[1]" to entries of a couple of paragraphs. Once articles reach more than a few paragraphs of text supported by reliable sources then they should be able to sustain their own articles, with their entry on the Minor Party page replaced with a main style section. After all, the notability criteria is not a test of how interesting or important the subject of an article is, it is a test to see whether there are enough reliable sources to sustain an article. Road Wizard (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now /that/ is an idea! Well....wait, it would still need to be an article very well sourced, but it could be a workaround solution. If I change the main page to suggest a merger of the two clauses, with your idea thrown in as a possible? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen this idea before, and I'm not overly keen on it - which are the minor parties (according to Ofcom, in Britain, it's everyone but the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid). I like the option of creating articles along the lines of Conservatism in x, Liberalism in x, Communism in x, etc, which can mention all parties espousing a particular viewpoint and link to the full articles on those which are notable and have sufficient material to make an article viable. Warofdreams talk 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am taken by the idea, but maybe the focus now should be on the clauses, then we can see what consequential changes can be made from there? The problem I have with the idea, although it does attract me as a form of comprimise if it can be sourced within an inch of its life, is how "minor" is minor? Incidentally, though, I thought Libertarianism in the United Kingdom was supposed to be the redirect destination for doktorb wordsdeeds 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We do seem to have agreement for that particulare merge and redirect; it just hasn't happened yet! On my to-do list. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jonathan! Er, I have thought about the Minor Parties... article in more detail, and think that perhaps best if it is NOT created. This whole policy is supposed to assist tightening up the rules on notable parties, so a minor parties article could be something of a contradiction. However it is something we could use in some manner in the future - maybe a userspace article instead? doktorb wordsdeeds 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved
The policy page has been copied to Notability (political parties).