Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Party Hong Kong


 * 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Progressive Party Hong Kong

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A political party that is less than four weeks old. Originally prodded for lack of notability and verifiability per searches on talk page but the prod was removed hence it is now here. No change, it still fails WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly non-notable. --- absolutely nothing besides that article itself. Similarly, a search on the Chinese name "香港前進黨" mentioned by the SPA who created this article  returns nothing but our own List of political parties in Hong Kong.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No sources, reliable or otherwise, to show notability or existence of party. I even tried a search on the name of the founder and the slogan, which might have got into a news item on the party, but with no success. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Ms Au aims at working at grassroots levels, while building up her party and publishing research reports." -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 16:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. At this point in time I would not consider the party notable. Maybe in the future it will be notable, but not today... 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe later it can recreated if it establishes itself enough later on. Snake66 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find anything on this other than this entry. If references can be found then it can be resubmitted, but for now there's nothing here.Georgiamonet (talk) 05:03, 4 February 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.