Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Party

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Party

This is another of the raft of minor parties that I'm proposing for deletion or merger into a list of minor British political parties and deletion. The party appears to have been a flash in the proverbial pan; it ran two candidates on a single occasion and then deregistered; therefore, it seems to have been the vehicle of one or two people to run for Parliament who got little notice and then disbanded.Tyrenon (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - didn't achieve anything of note, no real press coverage (just a couple of paragraphs in this BBC News article). Warofdreams talk 09:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They've only had two people run for office, getting almost no votes, and then voluntarily deregistered themselves three years ago. Not notable at all. Dream Focus 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just running candidates is enough to make a political party notable. We have enough space to cover them all.DGG (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Relevant Google findings:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/magazine/3369463.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1456783/Its-Your-Party-and-you-can-log-on-if-you-want-to.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article1045496.ece — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 7 June 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.