Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Party (UK)


 * 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 of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  12:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Party (UK)
I'd better officially add Thomas Davison to the nomination. Although it's a redirect to Imperial Party (UK) it has a page history. --kingboyk 08:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A 'political party' with one member and, in 2004, a declared income of 10 whole English pounds. Polled 129 votes in the 2005 general election, 0.3% of the electorate in the constituency in question and too small a percentage nationally to even bother about. This is what one would normally (charitably) call an "independent" but, no, this is apparently a political party of significance enough to merit a Wikipedia article. I had to laugh when the article provided a citation link for the statement that "critics have labelled the scheme unworkable and detrimental to personal liberty". Thinking it might be a local newspaper or even - in my wildest dreams - The Times, imagine my disappointment when the link took to me a forum at the UKIP, relatively a Goliath given how they polled 2.3%. This, my friends, is vanity spam cruft of the highest order. kingboyk 14:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I find the nomination convincing and the article unworthy of preservation. Politepunk 15:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per comprehensive and well reasoned nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 17:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wonder why so many people have edited the page... Granted, they're mostly IP addresses, but this article has even been vandalized a few times. Either this is probably the most well-orchestrated case of sock-puppetry I've seen, or this article generates enough interest for it to have a sunstantial edit history. I don't know what to make of it. No vote. Grandmasterka 18:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is extremely easy to stand for election in the UK. There have been people less successful in general elections, but some of them were actively trying not to get voted for... Average Earthman 19:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because Kingboyk says so. ProhibitOnions 21:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per convincing and well explained nomination. --Ter e nce Ong 02:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote: I'd like to vote keep, because if it exists officially under election law, we should not be passing judgment as to its notability, but if there's officially only one paid member, then it can't exactly be a political group. Peter Grey 08:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's one guy who stood in the general election and polled 129 votes. Your average Monster Raving Loony Party candidate polls way more than that and, as Category:Official Monster Raving Loony Party shows, we only have articles on their key figures, not every candidate who has ever stood for them. --kingboyk 08:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A political party of one person is a political party, there's no group criterion. The election law only refers to upcoming elections and then only requires that parties are not excluded from reference to that particular election in that particular constituency. MLA 10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Being a group may not be a requirement of UK electoral law, but it's a sensible requirement for encyclopedic notability. Peter Grey 06:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily - Martin Bell. Average Earthman 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Royal Television Society's Reporter of the Year and former MP Martin Bell? :) I take your point though. Independents can be more notable than small parties, and Bell is clearly more notable than a "party" who polled 129 votes. Sadly they don't even qualify as notable for receiving the lowest number of votes ever (1 vote!). --kingboyk 01:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 08:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - there are hundreds of minor parties that stand for UK elections and this is a good example of one that is not notable MLA 10:25, 13 March 2006 (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.