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. postdlf (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idle Toad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A very minor English political party with apparently just one member on a local council and no Westminster representation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There is very little notability and almost no resonable source of information, but given that the claim is true, then in my mind, it is deserving of a very week keep, for now.  Rmzadeh  ►  04:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 07:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WTF are these people and why should we care? But if they've achieved election, they ought to be included. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to what topical criteria? Notability of organizations is established through meeting the general notability guidelines, of which, Idle Toad has not done. Cind.amuse 03:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andy. However, if it's a one-person party, this should be merged/redirected to its candidate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Council membership does not establish notability. To add to that, their candidate has not established personal or political notability either, so no destination article exists. Cind.amuse 03:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst "election does not convey itself notability" is a literal reading of WP policy, assuming that they are thus non-notable would also require the belief that UK elections are held in the secret and the results unpublished. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The party has been described in the House of Lords as a "force to be reckoned with". They seem to have had multiple councillors, being more successful than the LibDems in South Ribble. And here's coverage in a national newspaper. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whilst I concede they may not have much internet based evidence for their notability, we are dealing here with a group who have maintained for a decade or more now representation on Lancashire County Council, have beaten mainstream parties in election, and have with their associated newsletters and campaigners "on the ground" a significant presence in the area they represent. doktorb _words^deeds 08:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment Look at this link to see a BBC video/audio link to Tom Sheratt and his reasons for forming/being an Idle Toad.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/lancashire/content/articles/2009/05/06/elections_2009_feature.shtml doktorb _words^deeds 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've added some more, referenced, information. Despite its unusual name, it is a genuine party with local councillors, and there is evidence of notability in the coverage. There is probably more on its formation in pre-internet newspapers. Warofdreams talk 10:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name is no more unusual than "tea party", and you can imagine the (no doubt, heavily armed) ruckus if that was AfD'ed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2011 (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.