Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Independence 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. Arguments for retention simply asserted that existence means it should be kept - this is not a compelling argument Fritzpoll (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Independence Party

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

This party is decidedly not notable. A Google News search turns up four results, three of which actually concern the SNP. The remaining story is about the Free Scotland Party, which is another microparty in Scotland (with apparently similar views). Their website is currently listed as being under construction, and according to Archive.org, it would seem to have been in this state for about two years.

This particular party contested three seats at the 2005 election, but even with three candidates they failed to cross the 500-vote threshold for inclusion in the 2005 results list. I am willing to consider that this is the Free Scotland Party under a different name, but it does seem to be a separate, even less notable, entity. Tyrenon (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion  00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with Tyrenon - no evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Scottish independence which seems an appropriate home for this content. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Keep Given that a candidate (Joseph Rowan), who when researched does declare that he stood for the Scottish Independence Party in 2005, found himself with 337 votes, this is enough evidence to suggest that 337 members of this constituency understood that the Scottish Independence Party existed and were willing to vote for it. This evidence alone displays that, regardless of the number falling short of the 500 needed to be displayed on the results list, enough people accepted the party existed to vote for it. Such a point can not be denied, and the party a) exists, and b) should remain on Wikipedia. Twbanks (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge (Weak keep) to Scottish independence. I agree that Twbanks brings up a good point there is a level of notability in that the party has recieved votes in the past and continouesto exist today and some of these sources exist apparently as secondary sources Which by definition of WP:ORG satisfies that A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. However I was reading this [] which seems to be their financial picture which doesnt shed a very notable view of the party and seems to be in decline. They are mentioned in a secondary link at []. I dont think the article should be deleted but a redirect merge would be approporaite as a worse case scenario if it cannot be expanded or sourced properly with enough secondary sources. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into Scottish independence. Despite the small number of supports and its status as a minority party, the party is still legal and registered in Scotland. Its influence with Scottish independence movements and limited information may be better to merge the article with Scottish independence. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:05, 11 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.