Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English People's Party


 * 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   delete. –MuZemike 15:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

English People's Party

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Could not locate any significant coverage in a secondary source to establish notability. Maintenance tag linking to WP:GNG removed by article's author, so I presume these are all the references they can bring to bear. Marasmusine (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm only seeing forum posts and Wordpress blogs discussing this topic on Google -- and a review of the article's history demonstrates that the nominator has been down this path with the article's author. Don't really see anything suggesting notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just noticed a problem with the three sources (as opposed to external links) offered as the article presently stands. I was puzzled by the inclusion of one of the references, which indeed would be a reliable source if it in any way referred to the party in the article - I am fairly sure I have used that source myself and was puzzled why the Northern Ireland local election results from 2005 were relevant. Of course, the source doesn't mention the party; as the party didn't exist in 2005 according to the article, that is hardly surprising. I checked the edit history and noticed that when an editor added the infobox (in this series of edits), he used the infobox from the English Democrats Party article as a template. Nothing wrong with that per se when you want to get the formatting and syntax correct, but the references weren't removed from the infobox, and so still refer to the English Democrats Party. So as the article stands at present, there are no sources that the party is a registered party and the sources offered, at present, do not refer to the party. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I also want to point out that before I took this to AfD, I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics if there was a more specific notability guideline for political parties. For example is being registered with the Electorial Commission enough for inclusion? No response as yet. Marasmusine (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that myself, particularly regarding the registration question. Honestly I think that the mere fact of registration wouldn't be enough; while looking for the current registration status for this party, I came across a list of parties that have been deregistered since 2002 here, which lists by my count around 400 parties that have been deregistered in that time. It really does come down to independent reliable-source coverage. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 22:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. I should say that a search on the Electoral Commission site does confirm that the party was registered on 11 Feb 2009 and the leader, nominator and treasurer is Andrew James Constantine, so there is no verification problem there. The article goes on to give a date of founding of 20 Nov 2010 and that gap would be unusual in any circumstances. There must be a story there which could be told if there were reliable sources. Perhaps if it only takes two people to register a party it might take 21 months to gather together enough for a launch. I'm in favour of a fairly low standard of notability for political parties but their acheivement so far is the 354 votes they got in a local election earlier this month. In the absence of coverage in independent sources and any other evidence of notability I think it fails GNG. --AJHingston (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No substantial independent coverage of the party, so fails WP:GNG. Has only fielded one candidate in a local election - who wasn't elected. If they had garnered coverage due to that or for any other reason that would bring them over the GNG threshold, fine, but that coverage doesn't exist. (In a technical aside, the current refs on the article should be removed. I would add the actual link to registration as that would be valid if I could generate a static link from the Electoral Commision site.)  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 23:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2011 (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.