Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Per Cent Growth 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 merge to Scottish Parliament election, 2007. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Per Cent Growth Party

I'm proposed this article (and several others) for either deletion or for merger into a list of small British third parties. My reasoning is that there are a decent number of minor parties which while not notable enough to merit their own page (for having contested very few elections and/or effectively having acted as the electoral vehicle for one or a few candidates) may be notable enough to mention on here. This is in part a result of there being a 'grey' area between clearly non-notable parties (those that never ran for any office) and notable ones (Labour and the Tories come to mind), and there being no clear guidelines; it partly results from the ease of party registration in the UK (and a few other Commonwealth countries).Tyrenon (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scottish Parliament election, 2007. A list of minor parties with no other link between them doesn't sound a great plan. In some cases, a merge to an article by ideology (e.g. liberalism in the United Kingdom) might make sense, but as this article doesn't have any information on ideology, the only thing to merge is the information about having achieved a record low vote, and that would be of interest in the article on the election. Warofdreams talk 12:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree on merging this into the Scottish Parliament election article. That's the only place the party got any mention; but for the record low vote total, I'd say even that wasn't merited, but I'll agree that merging it in there is probably safe.Tyrenon (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the benefits of merging all these minor parties into a group. It's one of the pleasing quirks of the UK electoral process and how do you define 'minor' - what about all those tiny Christian parties that will never get elected but don't show any signs of dying off? Me677 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In those cases, I wouldn't be opposed to creating a single article on Christian Parties in the UK (for example). Most of those parties tend to cater to an almost identical base, and in some cases one party is simply the re-branding of another one from a previous cycle (or, in at least one case [The Clause 28 Christian Democrats], they simply served as the electoral vehicle for one politician). There are a few other areas I can think of (Residents' Association parties jump to mind) where bundling a large number of the parties together as one general unit makes sense.Tyrenon (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In line with this, I also see a point to be made in that I think there should be country-specific guidelines as to what parties deserve articles. In the US, simply getting official party status in a state means that you've usually spent several tens of thousands of dollars and rounded up a large number of signatures (or won a lot of votes in an election). In the UK, by contrast, you've got the "50 quid and ten signatures" parties. While the latter are undoubtedly a nice quirk, they're a far cry from all being notable, as most will never save a deposit on any level or act as more than an arguable spoiler in an extremely close lone race...and often not even that.Tyrenon (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As a point of fact, 9% Growth Party subsequently deregistered from the Regiter of Political Parties so no longer exists, but do not see in this case the benefits of a deletion doktorb _words^deeds 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the election page of whatever election they gain votes in. It only costs £150 to register with the EC, we can't be listing hundreds of parties which will no doubt get more views on Wikipedia than votes. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's been my point in general: There are a large number of minor parties that have stood one or a few candidates in an election or a series of elections (i.e. a parliamentary election and a few local elections). There's ongoing talk somewhere on here about working up guidelines for inclusion, though.Tyrenon (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2009 (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.