Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Credit-National Unity


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Social Credit-National Unity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

"Social Credit-National Unity" was not a party, merely the banner used by a single candidate in a single election, who won a paltry 1.1% of the vote.

And that's about all we know for certain. About half the article (which, granted, is so short that "half" amounts to only a few sentences) is spent talking about each half of the banner, and saying it's unclear whether the candidate actually had the backing of either party, or if he had any affiliation with a similarly-named "National Unity" candidate. If there's so little information out there on what this political designation even meant, it's hard to say this justifies its own article. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete no significance and lasting importance, making whatever coverage there is, trivial. Geschichte (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is really just a biography of an unsuccessful (and therefore non-notable per WP:NPOL) political candidate, titled with his self-conferred ballot affiliation instead of his name in an attempt to make it look like an article about a political party instead of a non-notable biography. But even the inclusion standards for political parties don't grant automatic inclusion to every "party" that's ever appeared on a ballot either, and still require evidence of actual registration as a true political party and evidence of reliable source coverage about the party, and this article isn't showing any of that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2020 (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.