Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isle of Wight 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   delete. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Wight Party

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I have not been able to find any reliable, independent, and secondary sources on the Isle of Wight Party. As a result, I believe that the article breaks WP:N. I imagine that some people may be thinking “Any political party is notable”, and I understand that viewpoint. However, this party's activity began at the start of the campaigning season of a parliamentary constituency election in the Isle of Wight back in 2001, and I have found no evidence that the party has been active since. Also, the candidate fielded during that election by this party only gained 1.8% of the vote, and I have found no evidence that the candidate is in of himself notable. As a result, I do not agree that this party is notable. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete looks a lot like a single issue - single person party. And now he's bored with it too. For a party to be notable it has to have an organisation I think. MadScot (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per MadScot. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For the most part, I would say "Wight on!" but I'm confused about the suggestion that www.parliament.uk isn't a relable source. Still, the article itself doesn't indicate that this party was notable, other than for being a registered political party that was on the ballot.  From what I understand, parties aren't inherently notable (i.e., open to debate) although there have been proposals  to set threshhold requirements for inherent notability.  I don't think that, based on what is state in the article, this party would be notable.  Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My apologies for not being clearer regarding my assertion that no reliable, independent, and secondary sources exist on the Isle of Wight Party.  www.parliament.uk is a reliable website, which is independent, and secondary.  However, the website is offering trivial coverage of the Isle of Wight Party, and according to WP:N, trivial coverage in one reliable, independent, and secondary source is not usually enough to make a subject notable.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: if this ever was an active political party its time has passed. It certainly was a one-issue platform. The title of the party and the manifesto seemd to suggest a wider significance, but this never came to fruition. The 'fixed-link' debate on the Isle of Wight is probably notable enough in itself to merit an article - for a very thick-skinned editor to write - and in the unlikely event that this ever occurred the contents of the article under discussion would merit a place in that article. But it cannot stand alone. Naturenet | Talk 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Apart from the little bits of bureaucratic cruft leftover from a single electoral bid, there's nothing on this party, apart from the Wikipedia article. One letter even suggests the founder isn't even a resident anymore, and I can't find current registration information in the Electoral Commission's database. If there is a tradition of occasional regionalist parties, that could be subject of an article. Avram (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (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.