Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Candidate Deserves My Vote!

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. Kubigula (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Candidate Deserves My Vote!

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

Fails notability guidelines. Fails organisation notability guidelines. Less than a handful of candidates stood, with derisory results. No current or contemporary campaigns. We already have an article on this kind of novelty candidate (see None of the above. Failed novelty one-issue candidates do not fit Wikipedia article policies. doktorb _words^deeds 11:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to None of the above#No Candidate Deserves My Vote! party. Some coverage so not a candidate for outright deletion, but as their notability is entirely connected to a campaign for None of the Above, that looks like the best home for this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Refactoring confusing blue link of unsigned entry above. The actual link was to None of the Above, not to a fork article on this specific party. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, used wrong symbol. Should be clear now. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to the inclusion of political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. As this is a registered political party which has stood candidates for election, this is an easy call for me. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Registered party that has fielded actual candidates. Enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish at least marginal notability. If not kept, it should be redirected to None of the above, not deleted.--JayJasper (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think, as does Carrite, that we should be on the very inclusive side about political parties (and, for the same reason, religious movements) in order to provide NPOV coverage and avoid conscious and unconscious bias. In any case, the basic requirement that there is WP:V for their having actually run a candidate has always been held sufficient here. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 8 March 2012 (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.