Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attendance allowance (political)

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 07:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance allowance (political)[edit]

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

Unreferenced and inaccurate personal essay. Rathfelder (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ESSAY. Phenom is real, but this page is woefully inadequate - is this term even in COMMON use?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it is a common term in UK politics, and this UK Government-supported report might provide useful material for the article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot keep an article with no sources at all. If someone wants to source it - and verify that it does not merely duplicate an article on the name phenomenon under a different name - please ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the article stands it is misleading. But it is a topic deserving of an article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay about a government benefit that is incorrectly named, has been around since 2006 with around 20 edits total, not even worth a redirect. Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2018 (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.