Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcastle upon Tyne Community First 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. Three SPAs have voted keep that either have a conflict of interest, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or are WP:ILIKEIT. None of these opinions are based in policy. One keep vote from an established editor puts the threshold for inclusion at WP:V. Three other editors remark that this organization fails WP:GNG lacking coverage in media larger than local coverage. I've ignored the SPA votes that are not based on policy. Of the remaining editors, the stronger argument is to delete. v/r - TP 19:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Newcastle upon Tyne Community First Party

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails to meet notability criteria. Sources indicate its existence not its notability. Google searches find no WP:reliable sources. to establish notability for small, local political party. Only coverage is in local media. noq (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This party has been featured in North East of England regional media. I am new to wikipedia so cannot understand how this party is proposed for deletion because it doesn't meet the notability criteria despite being featured in national, regional and local press and yet the Royalist Party of the UK has no independent sources at all and is not being proposed for deletion. The same is true for the following parties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residents%27_Association_of_London, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_Huddersfield_NHS, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Community_Issues_Party, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Community_Group_(London_Borough_of_Hounslow), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPPILA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_People%27s_Party_(Furness), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Choice_(political_party), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Darwen_Party. Double standards maybe? I disagree with the removal of the article. (Jjackson33 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are thousands of new articles created everyday - some will get through. Where in the national press has it been covered? All I have seen has been local. Also please also bear in mind your apparent WP:conflict of interest - your user name seems to indicate you are the leader of this party.  noq (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I don't think that three mentions of the party in local papers is enough to scrape notability, but others may disagree. As for those other parties, some have local councillors so are very likely to have coverage, while the Royalist one is new and in my sights! Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Strong keep I have looked at the other parties and while some have councillors, others do not but why would one with independent reviews be deleted while another with none is assumed to have some coverage when none is on the article. (Ern1973 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valifd argument here. Also, would you be happen to be a candidate for this party? See WP:conflict of interest. noq (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No I am not a candidate for the party nor am I a member. (Ern1973 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC))


 * Delete - non-notable local party which has achieved no electoral success. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to the inclusion of articles about political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders in Wikipedia. Although new, this organization passes the threshold of verifiable existence, which is where I myself draw the line. There are sources showing in the piece. "Electoral success" has nothing to do with whether a party is worthy of encyclopedic coverage, many parties do not even run candidates for office, let alone win. Encyclopedias SHOULD include coverage of political parties, that's the bottom line. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with the comments above. (Hugh 21:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughwho (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Is there anywhere that gives a political party automatic notability? The last two entries smack of WP:ILIKEIT. The WP:GNG notability guidelines require significant coverage - not just a few comments in the local paper - I'd qualify for an article if that is all that is needed. noq (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as I am concerned, your entries smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and possibly betray a WP:BIAS. You are making claims about a regional newspaper that does not match its wiki description The Journal (newspaper) which says "The newspaper mainly has a middle-class and professional readership throughout North East England, covering a mixture of regional, national and international news". As far as I am concerned, it meets the notability benchmark. (Hugh 20:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment I don't know where you get bias from, and the wiki link to the paper is hardly encouraging. An unsourced description of national and international coverage does not make it a national paper. How exactly does it meet WP:GNG? noq (talk) 00:56, 11 July 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.