Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Whig 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 speedy keep. 17Drew 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

British Whig Party

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I know this is going to be very contraversial... but this article has been totally unsourced since June 2006; it therefore fails WP:NOTE by not asserting its notability, plus WP:VER and WP:RS. It's got to go. There've been nearly 16 months for somebody to deal with it, and they're clearly not planning to. Rambutan (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of assertion, being one of the major political parties in England for hundreds of years is certainly notable. Further, the question isn't is it sourced; it's can it be sourced? Plenty of history books should be around, so this isn't a deletion issue -- it's a cleanup issue. Lack of interest isn't grounds for deletion.    B figura  (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Speedy close I added the appropriate Encyclopedia Britannica entry as a reference, and this is most certainly a topic worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously needs references, but clearly passes WP:N. AFD is not the way to deal with unreferenced articles. Use unreferenced and see WP:CLEANUP for other avenues at getting an article improved. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep, clearly notable political party if it's been around for hundreds of years. We do have the unreferenced template to fix lack of references. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously notable.--Michig 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as very notable political party; this should be rather easily verifiable and referenced. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.