Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money Reform Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merge to Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, 2006.  Sandstein  15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Money Reform Party

Money Reform Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Very minor non-notable political party - if that - who have stood in just one byelection Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, 2006 getting less than 5% of the vote. They are effectivly a pressure group with no recorded action in any other constituency, or in the mainstream media. There has been one Prod nomination, removed by a user on the grounds that they could appear at a time in the future. There is no evidence that they intend to follow up any of the action they may have done thus far. This article carries little more than their website content. I created the original article at the time of the by-election to assist in creating the election results box (the metadata election box results thingy works better with created articles) but can now see little need for this article to remain doktorb wordsdeeds 11:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to gain in deleting this article. This party may crop up again in the next general election, and someone may want to look them up. Also, their exceptionally low number of votes itself is noteworthy. NFH (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment You may need to look at WP:INTERESTING in this case, as well as WP:N in general. There may well be dozens of MRP candidates at the next election, but as I cannot look into crystal balls that is not an argument to allow the piece to stay. The MRP have not stood anywhere in 2 years, have not contributed to the British political argument in 2 years, have not made any major contributions to the advancement of their own cause if their fairly dormant website has anything to go off. Unless notability and importance can be proven, I cannot see where the content of this article can go, other than away through the delection process doktorb wordsdeeds 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, be it that this party is indeed miniscule, but it did run in an election and is linked from the article on the election. Replacing the current link with a red link or no link at all would not be of any benefit. WP:PAPER is worth noting. --Soman (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Or you just de-activate the link? doktorb wordsdeeds 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's what I meant by 'no link at all'. I still think keeping the article is the best choice. A causal reader, viewing the article on the bye-election without having gone through series of articles on other British elections would then get zero info on what this party actually is. --Soman (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is currently no article on the Animals Count party who stood in the recent London Elections. if I want to know about them, I check Google. Wikipedia is not Companies House. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge with and redirect to the by-election article. Until it does something else notable, an article on its own is neither notable nor maintainable. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the by-election article. The party is currently only of interest in relation to the by-election in which it stood, and verifiable details are only available in relation to it. There won't be much to merge, and the couple of sentence will provide useful additional information in that article. Warofdreams talk 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to the article on the byelection; they have no independent notability, and we can't keep the article on the basis that they might become notable in future. Terraxos (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge to by-election. This party's article does not state any independent claim of notability. If it was seen as a spoiler party or if another party co-opted its ideas then maybe, but otherwise, nope. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per the above suggestions. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:04, 27 May 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.