Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensioners Party (England)

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 of the debate was no consensus, therefore keep moink 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pensioners Party (England)

Non-notable political party. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are 12 entries in Category:Pensioners' parties; why is this particular one non-notable? Vilĉjo 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The other ones have some claim of notability, as they show past election results and some of them have representatives in their country's parliament. Can this party make the same claim? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If the party is registered with the Electoral Commission (United Kingdom), it is notable. TruthbringerToronto 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - Where does it say that? I'm not being argumentative, I'm just curious. How difficult is it to register a party with the Electoral Commission? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: it is registered [1]. Granted, it does look a bit of a one-horse venture; no NewsBank UK newspaper archive hits for it - though a few for its founder... Tearlach 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify - I wasn't doubting the fact that it is a registered party, but am wondering why that alone makes them notable. If all it takes is a dozen signatures and a small fee, I can have a party and a Wikipedia article I guess. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the requirements to register as a party in England: pay a £150 fee, fill in an application form, and provide a copy of the party's constitution and a draft financial scheme. Tearlach 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very, very, weak keep, since it's registered. But it really needs more information. -- cds^(talk) 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too many non-notable political parties out there like this one Bwithh 04:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: on balance, I agree, after looking at the list of scarcely notable parties who've stumped up their £150. The Pensioners Party is registered, but appears to have done nothing yet. Also, I only just noticed that the article appears to have been posted by the party's originator. Tearlach 09:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hardly stands anywhere in the UK, no notable influence on UK politics. Many parties are registered - and most of them have just one candidate. MLA 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We have several articles on very minor parties, but the number of parties which are registered is still not so high that it becomes ridiculous to have articles on them. People interested in politics will want a complete coverage of all parties. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle Choalbaton 12:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability beyond the simple registration. Eluchil404 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please we need to cover minor registered parties like this Yuckfoo 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Sjakkalle. I'm currently doing a politics degree and find WP a useful resource precisely because of its pretty full coverage of even quite minor things. Besides, sometimes these minor parties can suddenly acquire influence quite beyond their apparent significance – e.g. the Israeli pensioners' party Gil (though not admittedly in a first-past-the-post system). Vilĉjo 14:53, 8 June 2006 (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.