Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taking the Initiative 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 keep. After two relistings, there was not much discussion but the point was made previously that there is significant coverage and the article could be further expanded with the electoral contests in 2021. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Taking the Initiative Party

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Organisation fails our ORG and GNG guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties and should not be used to host pencil sketches of political parties just because they exist, but rather because of what they have achieved outside merely being formed to fight elections, which is where I believe this article falls down. No evidence of importance, notability, or achievement outside those expected for a political party. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG judging by the national attention the party specifically has received (though sometimes thanks to the high profile of Sasha Johnson) in the Telegraph, Times, The Scotsman and the BBC, already cited in the article. Cut-and-paste deletion rationales don't always work, particularly not in this case. And seriously, if we deleted political party articles because of no "achievement outside those expected for a political party" we'd have no articles left. Sionk (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment- Normally for a party with a short history and no electoral success I would agree that it is unlikely that it is going to meet notability standards. However, it does seem attracted reasonable coverage for its activities, and I do wonder if this is just enough to take it over the line, though an argument might be made it could be covered at Sasha Johnson for now, as the majority of coverage of the party seems to be included in works covering her. However if kept, it needs work. There is no mention of it contesting any elections, but the Sky News source cited indicates it did contest local elections in 2021, so this could be covered. Equally the article claims it was launched in 2020, but registered with the Electoral Commission in 2017. I am not sure if this is an error (though it does indeed seem to have been registered in 2017), or something that needs clarification (for instance if it was registered, but failed to be active until a formal launch in 2020). Dunarc (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming it was launched to contest elections in May 2020. It also contested some local (London) council seat by-elections at the end of 2020. I agree it will be beneficial to expand on this if the article is kept. Sionk (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2021 (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.