Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Scotland Party (2nd nomination)

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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Scotland Party

Another of the parties I'm suggesting for either deletion or merger and deletion. See any of the last few nominations of UK parties for an explanation, but this is a party which appears to have run a few stray candidates at the 2005 General Election, won less than 2000 votes, and then vanished. I don't think it merits its own article, but merging a bunch of these parties together into a single "List of minor British political parties" article doesn't strike me as out of the question.Tyrenon (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - received a reasonable number of coverage at the time, (examples from Google News). Stood candidates not only in 2005, but also in the Scottish Parliament election, 2007, and is still active. Leadership includes a former deputy leader of the SNP. The party hasn't made a significant electoral impact, but I think there's enough there to demonstrate notability. Warofdreams talk 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Warofdreams says, they are from notable stock and I understand are in some way linked to like-minded parties south of the border in readiness for the elections next year. doktorb _words^deeds 22:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Tyrenon
- Wait...I assume you meant per Warofdreams, not per me?Tyrenon (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I meant Warofdreams Francium12 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough coverage to warrent inclusion of this page, although it could use som work, perhaps expansion.SallyRide (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn after some discussion with another user, though I may bring this up again in the future (after some hammering-out is done on UK party guidelines, which do seem to be at least vaguely in the works).Tyrenon (talk) 02:34, 31 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.