Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Family Party

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. Sandstein 12:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Family Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving 465 votes and barely any notable coverage before or after general election. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe. doktorb _words^deeds 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the above and think this page should be deleted. The party has never held any elected representatives at any level of government and out of the two candidates they have stood have achieved less than 1% of the vote in both cases. This does not seem to be notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Helper201 (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Failed political party. Nate • (chatter) 17:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Political parties like this are ten a penny in UK politics, which in my view overvalues them. When a non-notable failed candidate forms a non-notable party, and that party goes on to do pretty much nothing at the ballot box, we don't need an article about it. Ironically, "not notable" is the nicest thing I can think of to say about this party. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This party is active, has a website and has stood candidates in elections. It plans to stand at least 8 candidates at the next Scottish Parliament Elections. It has quite a big website for a party of it's size. I think that it will become even more notable by the 2021 Scottish Parliament Elections, and deleting this page would just be counter-productive. Also, even if it isn't that notable, all the sources are reliable, it's completely neutral and meets the high standards of very good wikipedia pages. Dylan109 (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan109: Thanks Dylan. "It plans to stand at least 8 candidates..." runs against WP:CRYSTAL. If they "plan", that's something we all do. We can plan to lose weight. We can plan to tell our boss what we truly think of them. We can plan to visit Greece on holiday. But planning is not notable until a) it's achieved, and b) something important or notable or lasting happens as a result. If the SFP stand and the results are remarkable, notable or historic, then we can perhaps find a place in an article. But so far their record suggests otherwise, and it's only on past records, not future plans, that we should be hosting articles on Wikipedia. Having a big website doesn't matter. doktorb _words^deeds 06:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.