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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist Alliance[edit]

Defunct and Non notable political group with no record of candidature or campaign material. No evidence of activity since article creation. This group are defunct as per this proof from the United Kingdom Electoral Commission http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/63167/Renamed-or-Deregistered-Parties.pdf. doktorb _words^deeds 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being defunct is irrelevant. Notability does not expire. The party was once registered with the Electoral Commission. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - registration with Electoral Commission establishes notability. Ground Zero | t 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have never been in an election or campaigned for anything, as far as I can tell, which suggests they are NOT notable doktorb _words^deeds 18:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless more coverage is located. I agree that notability does not expire but in this case it does not seem like notability ever existed in the first place. I don't think the mere fact of registering with the Electoral Commission makes them notable. I looked around a bit but could not find any newscoverage of them and, as mentioned by the nom, they never fielded any election candidates. If someone finds more examples of significant coverage, I'd certainly reconsider but for the moment does not seem to pass WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyone with £150 to spare can register as a party with the Electoral Commission,[1] so registration in itself is certainly not a claim to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a number of references and generally rewritten the article to improve quality and establish notability. It was in a bit of a state before but now I hope that it establishes notability for a group who tried, albeit briefly, to unite the various factions of the Britiah far right before becoming yet another faction themselves. As such I'm voting keep. Keresaspa (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per improvements by Keresaspa. There are some decent sources and the article is worth including.ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2008 (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.