Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For Heaven and Earth 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 keep. Lourdes 15:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

For Heaven and Earth Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Sources are a dead link (bangkokbiznews.com source), the Thai Wikipedia article, their party website (asoke.info which seems to be having hosting issues), and a PDF that just shows the party exists. Fails GNG. Vermont (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- nominators are supposed to try to make a reasonable effort, before nominating weak articles for deletion, to first determine whether they were looking at a weak article on a genuinely notable topic. I performed a google book search, and I think its results make clear the party was a real party, one which real scholars wrote enough in enough detail to meet our inclusion criteria.  Nominator, when someone considers nominating a weak article for deletion, and their independent search for references makes clear the topic itself merits a standalone article, aren't they supposed to take steps to call for the article's improvement, not nominate it for deletion?  Isn't it counter-policy to abuse AFD as a goad for article improvement?  Tagging the article with meaningful tags, like refimprove would be one policy compliant choice.  Voicing their concerns on the talk page, or leaving notes on the user talk page of contributors they thought added problematic material are also policy compliant choices.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I excerpted passages from a scholarly article devoted ENTIRELY to the party's 2011 campaign posters. Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * + excerpts from the abstract of Political semiotics of national campaign posters and pictorial representation: Thailand's 2011 general elections
 * The highly contested nature of Thai politics becomes salient when viewing campaign posters pictorial and linguistic content. The most controversial of which was the ``Vote No'' campaign taken on by the For Heaven and Earth Party
 * This study seeks to unwrap and decode the semiotics of this party's...
 * }
 * This study seeks to unwrap and decode the semiotics of this party's...
 * }


 * I think you misunderstand why I AfD'd this article: I do not think it is notable, and I am not attempting to use AfD for article improvement. Nor am I claiming it does not exist; political parties are not inherently notable. A search for something as broad as the name of the party (in Thai, obviously) yields a few non-notable news articles, some YouTube videos, and it's social media groups. This isn't significant coverage. From what I was able to find, the party does not seem to have any of its members in political office. The "Vote No" campaign that study focuses on would, in my opinion, merit a section in the article on the Thai general election, 2011, but not to be construed as making this political party notable. Vermont (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Since AfD is not for cleanup. GenuineArt (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * May I ask what you constitute to be significant coverage in several independent sources that make this party notable? Vermont (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Even the passing mentions are few and far between. Articles on election posters do not equal sources on the actual party. Kleuske (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sample of news coverage from major newspapers: Post Today, Thai Rath , Manager Daily , Kom Chad Luek . Latest news from March 2018 showed the party is ranked 9th in terms of number of members of the party. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Post Today article, which is a quote and a few sentences, seems to focus on the fact that they're sending candidates after 8 years of doing nothing. The article from Thai Rath looks to be more about a dispute which the party was involved in than the party itself, and is not significant. The article from Manager Daily seems go over the party's platform as well as speak about how small it is compared to the larger parties, and the article from Kom Chad Luek seems to be an overview of some recent party issues and a short interview. Of course, as I don't know Thai very well, you're much better at discerning if this is significant coverage than I am. Vermont (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly enough sources for notability.  (but having a weak article come here is in practice one of the best way of calling it to attention for people to improve.  DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to People's Alliance for Democracy. What RS there seems to be seems to be in conjunction with the People's Alliance which is a notable allied party. I am not seeing info on what this party has done either currently or historically. The notability standard for political parties should be VERY low but having looked at sources here and at the Thai version of this article I'm not seeing it at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per DGG. I also looked at the references and found them sufficient. The article, however, is weak and poor at the moment, but that has never been a deletion guideline. Rosario (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2018 (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.