Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Party (UK, 1998)


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn by myself, no arguments for deletion. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party (UK, 1998)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I don't think this party is notable. It's not clear if it is still operating (they are still registered, but their website is defunct, last updated in 2005), but regardless they never picked up significant coverage.

They got an AP story when they launched in 1998, a little bit of passing press when the Earl of Burford stood for them in 1999 against Michael Portillo in the Kensington and Chelsea by-election, and some more passing mentions when one of the founding members, Alan Kilshaw, became involved in a scandal involving buying babies (wot, no Wikipedia article?), but I don't think the WP:GNG is satisfied.

The Guardian called them "obscure" in 1999 and I don't think the following decade changed matters. If they're judged notable I'd be happy to bash the article into shape. Fences &amp;  Windows  04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think the 1998-1999 coverage establishes notability. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above about notability being permanent. Note also that an entry about this group appears in The History of British Political Parties which would definitely count as coverage in a reliable source at a level well above trivial. Keresaspa (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the coverage scrapes over the WP:GNG line, which I'm comfortable with because I think it sensible to lean towards including articles for borderline political parties (as opposed to borderline reality TV contestants!). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (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.