Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No longer functioning party (search for that evidence here - https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/EntitySearch.aspx). No notable electoral result, no credible third party coverage, no evidence of notability during their brief existence, and now they are removed from the electoral register, there is no chance of them performing anything important enough to justify their continued existence on Wikipedia. Cannot find anything notable enough within London politics, let alone English politics. doktorb wordsdeeds 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). But the assertion above that the Electoral Commission says this party is no longer functioning is simply untrue. The Electoral Commission gives the date of registration as 10/10/2012 and does not say that the party has deregistered. Searching registered parties' annual returns shows the party made a return in 2013. And seeing as it contested this year's European Parliament elections it is false to say that they had no evidence of notability "during their brief existence". Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is one of a number--about 10?-- of UK political party AFDs simultaneously running, opened by same nominator.  All seem to be about registered political parties;  all or most have fielded candidates in elections and received votes;  all have received coverage.  This one may or may not have less references immediately available.  But as with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG is shown if/when editors respond, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep.  No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those other campaigns, seems wasteful of community attention.  When/if a number of the AFDs are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others, including this one. -- do  ncr  am  21:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I will not withdraw any nomination.
 * This "party" is not notable, fact. They are no longer active, fact. They did not achieve anything in the few months they existed, fact. They may not form again, so we must judge them on what the "achieved". The evidence is nothing of any notable record, whatever. Being written about does not equal being notable. Not being notable is against Wikipedia policy. Being against Wikipedia policy means they must be deleted. It really is that simple. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, per WP:GNG being written about is practically the definition of notability. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:
 * Articles for deletion/4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)
 * Articles for deletion/Britannica Party (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Countryside Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)
 * Articles for deletion/Free England Party
 * Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Miss Great Britain Party
 * Articles for deletion/New Nationalist Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Roman Party
 * Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party)
 * Articles for deletion/Patriotic Socialist Party (2nd nomination)
 * For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.
 * And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):
 * Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)‎
 * Articles for deletion/Independent Green Voice
 * Articles for deletion/Scottish Democratic Alliance
 * Articles for deletion/Yorkshire First
 * I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD).  But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on.  Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.
 * Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation.  And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.
 * Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs.  This is NOT wp:canvassing;  it is appropriate to point out the commonalities;  this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages.   My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these.  I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). -- do  ncr  am  19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. -- Green  C  19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.