The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't. -- SandyDancer 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Moreover, this article's description of this political party makes for good reading, indicating as it does that nobody knows anything about this party apart from rumours and what is on its web site, and they don't trust that:
The size of the party, which you are also trying to make the focus of the discussion, is also beside the point. To warrant an encyclopaedia article, we need more material than just 1 single web site published by the party itself, which is all that is available here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for simply re-hashing a political party's own propaganda. But without any independent sources whatsoever, that is the only thing that an article on this party can ever be."Not much is known about this party, although sources have told us that they stand for a white England. We have also been informed that this party does not agree with Immigration or a multi-cultural society, so it seems this party could be more on the lines of an English BNP. This information however could be incorrect, and we cannot verify this as there is no E-mail address on the web site etc. Anyway, to judge for yourself, visit the link."
The 1 line in the election results table is all that can be found outside of Wikipedia, and is all that should be found inside Wikipedia. Uncle G 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't.`
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't. -- SandyDancer 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Moreover, this article's description of this political party makes for good reading, indicating as it does that nobody knows anything about this party apart from rumours and what is on its web site, and they don't trust that:
The size of the party, which you are also trying to make the focus of the discussion, is also beside the point. To warrant an encyclopaedia article, we need more material than just 1 single web site published by the party itself, which is all that is available here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for simply re-hashing a political party's own propaganda. But without any independent sources whatsoever, that is the only thing that an article on this party can ever be."Not much is known about this party, although sources have told us that they stand for a white England. We have also been informed that this party does not agree with Immigration or a multi-cultural society, so it seems this party could be more on the lines of an English BNP. This information however could be incorrect, and we cannot verify this as there is no E-mail address on the web site etc. Anyway, to judge for yourself, visit the link."
The 1 line in the election results table is all that can be found outside of Wikipedia, and is all that should be found inside Wikipedia. Uncle G 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't.`