Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Democratic Party (United Kingdom)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

People's Democratic Party (United Kingdom)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties and certainly not of unnotable "here today, gone tomorrow" outfits like this. No notable results, no notable personality, no impact before, during, or after the one byelection fought. Not notable by any Wikipedia guidelines. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete; the nominator is right. UK politics produces all sorts of tiny parties that disappear in a flash. Seventy one people cared enough about this party to vote for it in the only by-election it fought. There are people whose round-robin letters at Christmas have greater circulation than that. The only source that looks superficially good (Guardian) is actually an interview with the party's one and only candidate. No offence intended to the party's undeniably worthy aims and efforts, but they never made it big enough to become of encyclopaedic interest. Otherwise, according to the article, a party has recently been created with the same name, but until it does something, this new contribution to the article's function is WP:TOOSOON. In any case, I can't find any record of this new party existing. Elemimele (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Nominator. non-notable minor political party. Eopsid (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The party has been around for 5 years, which is quite a long time and it has had an article written about it in The Guardian . GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fact check The party deregistered in 2017 so has not been around for five years. See proof here - http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP1934 doktorb wordsdeeds 08:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and that's precisely the Guardian article to which I referred: it is an interview for the Northern part of the Guardian, which was obliged to carry out interviews with every candidate no matter now minor, in order not to show political bias. You can see this by the fact that it contains links to all the remaining interviews in the series. Note, too, that the staff author has not written a single word about the party or its candidate, instead adding a couple of general sentences on Manchester's lack of political engagement, and then allowing the candidate to speak in his own words. It's a completely useless citation for establishing notability. Elemimele (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2022 (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.