Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Enterprise 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 no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Enterprise 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) 06:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no impact, and no press coverage (other than two brief paragraphs in this Sunday Herald article). A Google News search may suggest more coverage, but this is simply a large number of comments from a party member on articles on the Scotsman website. Warofdreams talk 09:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:21, 28 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a field where we should be especially reluctant to judge that borderline notability = non-notability. Accepting every the nomination says, the conclusion I draw from that statement is that this and all of the other articles referred to should be kept. DGG (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge As creator of the article (a long time ago) I'm fairly agnostic about it. The party did exist and fielded candidates, so it would be a shame to lose information about it, but it probably doesn't merit its own article -- would say that merger into a list of small British parties would be the best solution. Mendor (talk) 22:16, 8 June 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.