Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate party (UK)


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Climate party (UK)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Far too soon to have an article on a minor political party formed last week. There is a substantial Guardian source, and I gather that they'll have one councillor, their founder (who had a little bit of coverage when he ran,, but not much more than the average independent). But this isn't the multiple in-depth sources we need for GNG.

The claim in the first paragraph, "It has been compared to the Teal independents in Australia", is exaggeration and taken out of context. The Guardian just noticed the Teal independents as an example of a recent green conservative group with elected representation.

The other coverage I could find was in E&T (essentially a passing mention) and Business Green (not sure about reliability, but not the focus of the article). This party may be notable in the future, or it may not be, but it's not notable today. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Noting that I have moved the article from Climate party (UK) to Climate Party. Curbon7 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is way way too soon. The party was only registered last week, and the only source focused on the subject was literally published hours ago. No prejudice for recreation if/when it actually does some more things or gets some more people elected, but at the moment it simply hasn't shown notability. Gazamp (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2022 (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.