Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party of the Truth


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Party of the Truth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to be notable or pass the organization notability criteria. An unsourced article on a former political party that never got any representation. I've tried looking for sources, but couldn't actually find any evidence of the existence of this party. I will admit that it could just be English language sources that are lacking, but I can't locate anything. Canterbury Tail talk 12:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete tiny, ephemeral party that drew little attention. I suppose that this and the other parties could be mentioned in Fijian general election, 2006, which notes that there were 24 parties.   I looked and found very  little, although there was this in an apparently self-published book: "The others are minor parties, ephemeral, some with such improbable, entertaining names as Multiracial Dynamic Party, Coin Party, the Party of Truth. Their presence frustrates the main players, but..."  I did find two articles in a proquest news archive search - but only 2, and both merely to list it as here, the BBC: "Nineteen parties registered to date for 2006 Fiji poll." E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. While strictly speaking, political parties don't necessarily have to achieve parliamentary representation to be deemed notable, what they do have to do is receive enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — and while it's not entirely impossible for a minor party without representation in the legislature to pass that condition, it is significantly less likely than it is for the "major" parties that actually have caucuses in the legislature. There's no reliable source coverage being shown here at all, however, and political parties are not handed a free exemption from having to have reliable source coverage just because they existed. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Apparently too minor to have garnered WP:SIGCOV. Not an encyclopedia entry; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.