Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Militant Elvis 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 Keep - Wikidemo's unchallenged arguments carry the day and are persuasive that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. The reamaining arguments related to importance/significance lack conviction that the article fails CSD A7. -- Jreferee    t / c  06:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Church of the Militant Elvis Party

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I've had a look at the notability criteria and can't find anything that says any political party is by default notable. There are many political parties in the UK. Every local and general election there are people who stand for various parties formed in the pub. In searching for sources for this party I found them mentioned on this list which includes " Tiger's Eye", "Telepathic Partnership", etc. Then I found this List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005, which suggests that there is an intention to have an article on each of these parties. Now if that is the case then I think we need some consensus criteria on what makes a political party notable. My suggestion would be the party either has an elected candidate, or has made a significant impact as demonstrated by reliable sources. Neither of these cases applies to Church of the Militant Elvis Party. So my feeling is that this article, and others like it, should be deleted.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 22:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a real political party, just a name thought up by an enterprising self-publicist. Good luck to him, but it is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Monty Python sketch material. JJL 22:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's arguments as regards notability, then maybe move to WP:BJAODN.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and then oversight any mention of BJAODN just to be safe.  Bur nt sau ce  17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs sourcing but I see mentions in the Financial Times, Independent, BBC News, Associated Press.  This easily establishes notability.  Simply because something is a joke or a fringe group does not make it non-notable.  See Official Monster Raving Loony Party.  Plenty of Monty Python sketches about organizations and parties are notable as well for their humor, not for the reality of, e.g. The Ministry of Silly Walks. Wikidemo 14:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with minor uk political parties or with Joke Uk political parties. If such a list doesnt allready exist one should be created.--Lucy-marie 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep My criterion is this: In a few years' time, when I'm reading about elections in the 2000s and I come across a mention of the Miltant Elvis Party, I want to be able to find details in Wikipedia. Similarly, when I'm reading the Wikipedia article on the Erewash constituency, I want to be able to find out about the parties mentioned. It doesn't matter how serious or large a party is or is not - if it has contested elections and is mentioned in other Wiki pages it deserves at least a short article of its own. Emeraude 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - political parties registered with the government are notable. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is that your personal view, or is there a consensual guideline on Wiki? I couldn't find one.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 00:56, 13 October 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.