Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Democratic 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 was   keep. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Southern Democratic Alliance

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

per WP:ORG. This fringe political party which fielded candidates for one Legislative Council of Hong Kong seat, obtained 0.3% of the constituency vote and consequently lost its deposit in the 2008 election. In addition, the article was created by User:Lwmlung, who is suspected to have a conflict of interest. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. fails WP:NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, appears to be a reasoanble amount of third-party news coverage of the party. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep, for the above reason of generating coverage, and because this admittably minor group seems to be at least a leading foil for mainstream political groups. I admit that the article is not so hot, and it may even has some bias problems, but I would be disappointed if Wikipedia was missing coverage of minor parties like this. The prominence or negligibility of this party should be included in the article, of course. Avram (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a thorough rewrite, bringing the article inline with quality standards. I think it passes notability.Avram (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Avram's well-done clean up. We66er (talk) 19:45, 26 September 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.