Deletion of Alliance for Local Living

Comment: Fails . Just being a |local political party or independent political movement is not inherently notable. Being a group, residents Group, area group (The Cynon Valley Party), political arm (Cross-Community Labour Alternative), political statement group or party (Official Monster Raving Loony Party), Animal Welfare Party|animal Politics, or any other special interest group that can be formed by registering before an election, still depends on the notability sourcing requirements. Notability: {{tq|the subject of significant coverage in |reliable, independent |secondary sources and #Reliable sources and notability, {{tq|If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.}} The two BBC sources are not even about the subject but the "Dorset's nine councils to merge into two unitary authorities." Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria should also be considered. '''Extra comments''': Independent groups that form can join other parties or groups to form a coalition or coalition club. Currently there is one "party" member elected in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council and four in the Dorset Council. Regardless, these are very local council seats from a local group. The can of worms would be that all forms of local entities, regional, county (parish), police jury, and other strictly encyclopedic non-notable, mainly primary sourced with possible a local reference or two, would be eligible for consideration under a relaxed criteria. It would not make sense to allow a local political faction an article without allowing the entity it represents to also have an article. Where is the encyclopedic value in either of those? Now multiply the number of countries (195 including two observer states) by the number of regional, sub-regional, state, and local areas and parties for a possible total of multiple thousands of poorly sourced articles. I realiaze |other stuff is not supposed to be a good argument but it happens almost daily. It might look good for Wikipedia article number expansion but poorly sourced local parties and councils (juries) will be a degradation. It should not be forgotten that this usually includes the |names of living people that is supposed to have a higher source requirement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GROUP||WP:LOCAL||WP:RS||WP:SECONDARY||WP:V||WP:OTHER||WP:BLP)

Comment: One of the few times I would disagree here. I would argue that municipal representation is enough to pass notability. Coverage is naturally going to be localized given that it is a local political party. Despite being a  copout, there are several examples of municipal political parties passing muster (Projet Montreal, Surrey First, Burnaby Green Party) and several others that exist, but are woefully undersourced (which truthfully undercuts my argument, lol). In the end, I don't care either way, but I still think this passes notability due to representation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: I see a lot of references above to this article failing to reach {{tq|"the threshhold"}} but no actual identification of what that threshold is supposed to be. Applying  and  we're left with BBC references to establish notability. I disagree with
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:AUD)