Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free 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   keep. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Free Party (UK)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another of many parties I feel should be removed for non-notability or merged into a single article on such minor parties.Tyrenon (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - although not electorally successful, they do seem to have received a reasonable amount of press attention at the time. I've just had a very quick look, and have found this summary in Schnews, and this mention from the NME.  They also featured in an article in The Independent (see ), although I don't have access to the full text of that. Warofdreams talk 12:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Schnews is a small, weekly local publication that has much more of the feeling of a newsletter; I'm loath to consider coverage from a local paper as such on its own to count as notability.  The piece in The Independent is more substantial, and seems to be the most mainstream of the papers.  As seems to be turning into the standard I like to apply, I'd be more comfortable with another mainstream source or two giving a full story (or a good chunk of a decent-length story) to it.Tyrenon (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources do not rescue this article, in my opinion. They are a novelty party with no notability or notable electoral history doktorb wordsdeeds 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —Artw (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination talks of merger and does not seem to have considered the sources. Please see WP:BEFORE.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I must say that I find the sources to be quite lacking.  One is the party website (almost never an indicator of notability) and one is a single mention in a fairly local website.  I don't think that's sufficient.Tyrenon (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Another article at the Guardian plus 2 small articles from The Sun. In their entirety "Biz Bitz The Sun (London); Apr 28, 2001, FATBOY SLIM has agreed to play a benefit gig for wacky new political group The Free Party. The DJ will be spinning tunes on May 6 at Brighton's Concorde 2 for party members. The Free Party recommends drinking "strong lager all night long" while its "foreign policy" centres on "how to make a Cuban cocktail." and  "Tax on chavs The Sun (London); Apr 23, 2005; DJ Fatboy Slim is backing a group of joke politicians in the election. The Free Party vows to tax Chav's favourite Burberry and calls for poker to be taught in schools. It has two candidates in the star's home area of Brighton and Hove.". That article would suggest they had candidates in the 2005 elections as well as 2001. Tassedethe (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly sufficient sourcing to show notability; we are not supposed to judge political groups by the quality of their politics. DGG (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2009 (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.