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. No arguments for deletion except the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publican Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While this particular party is a bit more notable than the other ones I've nominated for merger/deletion, I don't feel that the Publician Party quite measures up to notability standards and therefore ought to be dropped or merged. I do feel that this one is a bit more of a borderline case (it did get over 5000 votes in the Scottish Parliament elections last time), but it still has the same feel as a number of the other one-shot parties I've brought up, and therefore I think it should probably go in the same pile as the rest of them (for merger or deletion).Tyrenon (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - looks pretty clear-cut to me; it may not have polled well, but 5,000 votes is a considerable tally, and there was plenty of coverage of the party at the time. Warofdreams talk 13:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the necessary Scottish Parliament election article. They have stood more than once, I'm sure of it, but they are no longer registered with the EC. doktorb _words^deeds 22:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is it wise to merge it into the Scottish Parliament election article, when they also stood in the 2005 UK general election? Warofdreams talk 09:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - definitely should be included - there are more sources that could be used, it just needs a little work. Smartse (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - actual political party. I only made a few small adjustments but yes, this needs cleanup, not afd. ZabMilenko 16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:24, 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]
• Keep Evidently notable as even the nominator tells us. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:21, 30 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.