Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Party Ave!


 * 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. ÷seresin 02:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Party Ave!

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

Recently created political party with one member. Very trivial coverage. Beach drifter (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * keep this here - it has sources. everything needs a wiki entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.178.18 (talk)


 * Speedy Delete - pure promotion, violates WP:N --mhking (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete They have fought elections before now, but they are nevertheless a one man band with barely enough results to justify an article here doktorb wordsdeeds 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I really can't see any justification for keeping them as they are a one man outfit who won 33 votes in a local council election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.111.23 (talk) :
 * Please put new posts at the bottom, not the top. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How about Minor parties standing in the 2009 Euopean elections in the United Kingdom Francium12 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep they get some votes making them notable enough in elections. I think Wikipiedia should have an article about the party to educate people about this party.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Many tiny political parties are formed to make some point. They are not notable until something happens (at least win a seat). I looked at each ref – they say absolutely nothing other than what is in the article (a party consisting of one person is contesting an election). Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The guy is a loonatic Bus driver and this must stay because he is a great excentric.--84.66.83.47 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Exceedingly minor party. The only coverage is in articles that devote the bulk of their time to more prominent parties. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence regarding noteworthiness: during the Play Radio UK election broadcast questions were sent in asking about this party and, of course, answers were not readily available. This page explaining the nature and platform of the party would no doubt have been useful were it available / discovered by the presenters of the program. This program claimed to have about 2000 listeners.--Sjgibbs (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be kept. It is a perfectly valid political party that has been regisitered just like any other. It explains what the party stands for.

In a few quick internet searches it is impossible to find out what this party is or is about, this provides the information to find this out. Threads and forums are the only available sources. After all, most people come to Wikipedia to find out these small kinds of facts that niggle you.

Charliedeacon —Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep - Thes best source of information on this party on the Internet. Wikipedia would be the porrer for its deletion. Francium12 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It should stay - I wanted to find out about it and this was just about the only source... was an odd entry on the ballot paper and I was intrigued... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.224.98 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

KEEP He got almost 5,500 votes, and wiki is one of the few places on the internet you can get information on the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickuae (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If WP is the only place you can get information on an organisation, it probably doesn't have any claim to notability at all. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has enough sources to be verifiable and notable. Can't see what the problem is. Horselover Frost (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (or just possibly merge to a list of minor parties in the UK). As above, has enough sources to be verifiable and notable and the information should not be lost from the WP. Greenshed (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, over two million people who voted in the South East Euro constituency will have seen this party on their ballot paper (or at least those who looked at the whole list). Greenshed (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (unless someone creates a suitable article this can be merged into). All of the sources are standard coverage that is applied to every single party, no matter how small. Since this party is little more than a one-candidate show, and WP:POLITICIAN is very clear that simply being a candidate doesn't confer notability, I don't see how this has any claim. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep what will be gained by deleting this? Nothing at all. It will simply remove the only readily available source of information on this party (not the only source - the only readily available source) and thus do a disservice to the several million voters in the South East that found it on their ballot paper. The article is clear, well written and collects from a number of sources. The party exists and is a registered party that has contested several elections, that is considerably more notable than just being an independent candidate. Agrestis (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is WP:NOT the first place for information. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If the claim to notability is based on non-readily available sources, let us know what they are and that might qualify as notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2009 (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.