Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raving Loony Green Giant 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 keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raving Loony Green Giant Party[edit]

Hum. 21 unique Google hits, including nothing that looks like a reliable non-trivial source about the group. A splinter group of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which polled fewer votes than the OMRLP in the tiny number of elections they contested. I suppose the fact that the leader then joined the Monster Raving Tory Party might score some points for political humour, but that's about it. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this group received a lot of coverage at the time, as evidenced by the reliable Almanac of British Politics reference, which gives a lot of information on the party and provides most of the details in the article. Most of this coverage will date from the early 1990s and is unlikely to appear online, but someone with access to newspapers of the period would be sure to find far more. However, we have this strong reference for much of the article, and I have spotted another book reference for the Scottish councillor. As the article states, the party was pretty successful at a local level, and it was this which generated the substantial media coverage. Warofdreams talk 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article about them in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which shows that the group received some international attention. Admittedly, there's not much else at the Google News archives, but that doesn't mean that other newspaper articles don't exist somewhere offline. Zagalejo^^^ 19:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google News archives are not great for the UK, but do turn up a couple of other references in U.S. papers the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The Intelligencer. Neither of these are freely viewable, but the second one looks like it may give some detail. Searching for the likely misspelling "Looney" turns up a (again not freely viewable) transcription of an interview with Hughes on National Public Radio. This party was clearly international news for a period in the early 1990s, and notability is permanent. Warofdreams talk 01:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy. Eusebeus (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon the party's inclusion in the Almanac cited by Warofdreams, and the media coverage suggesting international attention. This seems to be one of a growing number of topics running into Web bias here; topics that are difficult to research online seem to be increasingly running into difficulty, it seems. But the Almanac and the two newspapers noted add up to more than enough "reliable third-party sources" as far as I'm concerned. 23skidoo (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (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.