Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Life Alliance


 * 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 merge and redirect (keep and merge votes were equal, but seeing as many keeps were changed to merge as the debate progressed, I saw no problems with merging straight away). bainer (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Life Alliance
Lacks notability, however, switching this from a speedy delete tag to bring it to a vote.--MONGO 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note - this is a duplicate article. There are two articles about the same party, one at Pro-Life Alliance and one at ProLife Party.  The actual name of the party, according to their website is ProLife Alliance, which is currently a redirect. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If this is a duplicate of an existing article, isn't that actually a pretty good reason to delete/redirect?--Aolanonawanabe 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I brought this here for a vote only because I saw it was speedy tagged...but I vote to Keep and expand tag it to bring it up speed.--MONGO 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree not very notable. Croat Canuck 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, It deserves just as much attention as the Labour party. Chooserr
 * Delete, there is no content here, essentially an excuse for the article creator to preach against abortion--Aolanonawanabe 02:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:It's not to preach about abortion, but to give information on a political party. Also Aolanonawanabe has opposed me on every level...and I believe it's been nominated only out of spite. Chooserr
 * Comment: I didn't even nominate it--Aolanonawanabe 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You did for speedy deletion or Mongo wouldn't have changed it to a regular delete. Chooserr
 * Comment This is not a blog, you can't just go around creating POV forks that serve as an excuse for you to preach against abortion--Aolanonawanabe 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but an article about a political party that actually exists simply isn't a POV fork. -- SCZenz 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep . Groups lawsuit here invalidated much of Britain's reproduction law.  Jtmichcock 02:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Merge with ProLife Party per below.  Jtmichcock 23:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN -- негідний лють  ( Reply 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, improve, and be vigilant against POV. Very small politcal party, but 20,000+ votes in 2004 election per BBC, and we have decent articles on parties that got fewer votes (Forward Wales, The Common Good).  Bikeable 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Uncle_G. Bikeable 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve. A magazine only needs about 5000 subscribers to be notable. If this party garnered 20,000 votes, I'd say it's notable enough for an article. --Elliskev 02:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Has at least one more BBC article (past the above): . Do the people who argue lack of notability really think that's consistent with some of the points in the last few Keep votes?  I urge you to reconsider. -- SCZenz 02:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Uncle G below. -- SCZenz 21:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Less notable figures/ideas/etc remain without any threat of deletion. This is supposed to be a resource for information. GreatGatsby 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: What information does the article contain? Seeing as how the only content is a single unsourced quote?--Aolanonawanabe 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a stub, with one NPOV sentence about what the party believes. I agree the quote needs to be reformatted and sourced (it's from their website), and it needs to be tagged as a stub.  None of these are reasons to delete. -- SCZenz 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I say, but with the following changes:
 * 1) Get rid of that unsourced quote.
 * 2) Put a political party stub on the page.
 * 3) Add some content that assures notability.
 * Done, done and done! But as per Uncle G, I change my vote to  merge now. --ParkerHiggins 09:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

comment article is an orphan.Geni 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Keep This article is about an appearantly up-and-coming party. --Shanedidona 03:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, but needs improvement JG of Borg 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Could definitely use improvement, but I see absolutely no point in deleting it. --Jakes18 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. 34,000+ Google hits and a BBC article make it notable enough for me. If it is in fact the first "pro-life" party in Europe then definitely notable. &mdash;Bmdavll talk 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per SCZenz. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see this as a stub and not a vfd page. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 09:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the current version which includes stub info and both BBC sources. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This is certainly notable enough for an article. AnnH (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It just needs more information, without forgetting NPOV. :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously notable.  Could those who say that this party is not notable please defend their position, as those who think it is notable have?  Logophile 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Corse it's notable, and they've actually been quite controversial at times! XYaAsehShalomX 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to ProLife Party, where we have covered this political party for almost two years. Uncle G 15:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as Uncle G says.. -max rspct 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 16:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge ditto --Petros471 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious KEEP! Dwain 19:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above. (Bjorn Tipling 20:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Obvious MERGE! per Uncle G. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 20:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Uncle G. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A political party that has any base of support is worth having in Wikipedia. --Aleron235 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, after reading the comments and rest of the votes more thoroughly, Merge with the existing article.--Aleron235 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why is this here? -- JJay 03:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keep voters: this is a duplicate article. It already exists at ProLife Party.  That might not have been why it was nominated here, but it turns out... there's no point having two articles about the same party, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I promise you it will be merged after this AfD in any case. A merge and redirect requires no AfD or other vote, at least not in such an obvious case.  So while voting "keep" over "merge" is silly, it's not binding. -- SCZenz 02:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge - Uncle G is spot on as ever. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per nominator. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 22:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ??? per nominator?? on an AfD? Keep? --Elliskev 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * MONGO has written at the top that he votes keep, apparently based on all the new evidence, and stated that he brought it here because it was speedy-delete tagged. -- SCZenz 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Got it. Missed that. --Elliskev 14:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge' the articles together. Stifle 22:50, 11 December 2005 (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.