Deletion of Hereditary Peerage Association

Comment: An organisation formed in response to the single largest constitutional change in Britain in recent years, by and for people who have previously been members or are currently members of the country's upper legislature and are therefore inherently notable.  Reliable sources http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=20070215-132457 here and http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords/comment/0,,1664193,00.html here.  I don't know what more you want, and while I try to assume good faith I clearly see that the majority of the delete !voters here are driven by their own POV against the cause that this group represents.  In response to the original nominator's unsubstantiated suggestion of  I declare that I am not a member of this group, nor do I know anybody who is a member of this group
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: a lot of the deletion arguments here are based on the assertion that policy requires there be "multiple non-trivial reliable sources" written about the subject.  I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that as a result of a challenge as to whether it has consensus or not,  (the source of the assertion that this is required) no longer requires multiple sources, although it does state multiple sources are preferred.  However, as the group in question is clearly important due to its membership, I would say that a single source, in this case, is adequate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This article seems to scrape through all the tests. First, it clearly meets #Non-commercial_organizations; this is the association of a group of people who elect a sizeable proportion of members of the House of Lords.  It is irrelevant whether any editor thinks that arrangement a good or bad thing, but that's how it is, and this body has a position not unlike a sort of unofficial grouping of the majority of members of a United Kingdom constituencies|parliamentary constituency. As such, it is clearly a group of national scale, albeit not a high-profile one.Secondly, there is no dispute that this group exists: we have one good secondary source, and several undisputed primary sources. notes that "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." If this was a paper encyclopedia, I doubt that this article would merit as many as five lines, but |Wikipedia is ''not'' a paper encyclopedia. This is a weak article, but it's not a bad or misleading one, and it's a pity that it seems to have gotten caught up in a political dispute between some editors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:ORG||WP:PAPER)