Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The car 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 delete. Though the numbers are even, the arguments for deletion are much stronger and have firm grounding in the notability guidelines like WP:N and WP:ORG, not to mention the lack of sources.--Chaser - T 21:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The car party

The car party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsure if this group is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Article as-is seems like a spam article. Delete or merge into a more appropriate article (perhaps Transport in the United Kingdom?) Kesac 04:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep — As it stands it cites no sources apart from the party's own website, however a quick Google search reveals it noted in other places. Requires a cleanup and citations, other than that, seems notable enough. Maybe also a move to The Car Party. --RazorICEtalkC@ 04:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep First such party in the world Al-Bargit 13:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Most of the first 100 Google hits seem to be either first party press releases, or blog/comment entries. Only thing I could find on a quick search is this. [1] Looking further, perhaps merging with Road pricing might be a good idea? Kesac 04:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Al-Bargit, that is not a robust argument. If I form the AlBargit Party, the first such party, would that party merit an article? No. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:19Z
  • Keep but cleanup as this article currently reads like a political soapobox and an advertisment. A1octopus 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You've only stated problems with the article but no reason to keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:20Z
  • Delete The article as it stands fails WP:N by it's own admission Membership is currently 3600+ It fails Wikipedia:Attribution and has no Reliable_sourcesit also has issues with WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Signed Jeepday 16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has not improved since nominated, my delete rational from March 3 remains accurate. Jeepday 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As a registered political party (see here), I think it should be kept Lurker oi! 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete - Is being a registered party in the UK sufficient grounds for keeping? I do not know the method involved but if all it takes is to simply file some registration paperwork then being registered is hardly a measure of notability. A quick scan of the list in the provided link yields some ~380 registered parties in the UK, which would lead me to believe that simply being a registered party itself does not warrant inclusion. All the party's leadership appear to be from the same family, has by its own admission a very limited membership, the article lacks any credible sources and seems to have been created by a single use account. Unless some verifiable and independent information establishing some shred of notability is found this article does not belong here. Arkyan 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Initally I would have said keep but the party is not notable at all. As it has not stood in any election yet, only filed papers to set it up as a party 3 months ago, I think it should be deleted as there is nothing much in the article and if it becomes notable for what it does during a future election then I would find reason for it to be listed as an article as it would have something other to put than their manifesto. --PrincessBrat 17:39, 8 March 2007 (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.