Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Populist Party (UK political 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. BJ Talk 05:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Populist Party (UK political party)

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

This minor UK political party is not notable. I searched for mentions in reliable sources and could find none, and the contents are not verifiable. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See the previous AfD under a different title: Articles for deletion/Populist Party (UK). Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep - there are plenty of "non-notable" political parties out there, but a party being registered with the Electoral Commission is for me reason enough to judge it notable. Wikipedia would otherwise risk accusations of being partisan. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can register a political party with the Electoral Commission. Wikipedia standards require coverage in reliable secondary sources. Not every registered political party is notable. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete A putatively national party that claims (according to our article) merely forty members in a country with 44,000,000 voters is going to have to work very hard to show notability, and this article has not shouldered that burden. WP:GNG and WP:ORG require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and "[t]he depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I see little evidence of that (2,410 ghits, which is actually a very generous ceiling rather than an accurate count, since many of the hits appear to have nothing to do with the subject of the article or circle back to WP), and none is cited in the article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily this might be a candidate for speedy delete, as a previous AFD deleted it as non-notable. See WP:SPEEDY c4. But that was in October 2006, and both common sense and WP:RECREATE allow for recreation if the notability status has changed, as things might have done in two and a half years. AFD is thus the appropriate forum. But, as I said this morning, things do not appear to have changed, so deletion is again appropriate. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non Notable regardless of registration. Estragons (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty classic example of a "political party" which really exists in name only. It contested one local election, with a single candidate, oven ten years ago, and received about the same about of votes that trivial candidates in local elections usually do. It makes no attempt to engage with the political discourse of the country, has a nominal policy of not competing in European elections but doesn't compete in the others either, and has fewer members than the average Scout group. It's the political equivalent of a micronation. Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 7 July 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.