Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornish Democrats (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 delete. J04n(talk page) 20:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish Democrats[edit]

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

Recreated article about non-notable and barely existent political party. QueenCake (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly non-notable. Can only find minimal coverage on the web. Appears to be a one-man party (and the founder is non-notable), and it no longer even has a website, and the party received only a very small percentage of votes in 2010, hence subject is of no significance. In fact, this article might well be a candidate for speedy deletion as per "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion", as two previous articles on the subject have been deleted (but I don't have access to the previous ones so I can't tell if they were essentially the same).A bit iffy (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would of speedied it normally under A7, before I noticed it was a recreation. Whatever process is used, the article clearly has no place here. QueenCake (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not eligible for G4. Although the previous version contained more information it dates from before the 2010 election and so the claim about 0.9% of the vote in that election needs to be evaluated here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed per above.--Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Martin451 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & A bit iffy. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2013 (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.