Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Common Good (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   Keep. (non-admin closure) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 03:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Common Good (political party)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unimportant, non-notable organisation with no credible third party sources to justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Has no cultural relevance (unlike, say, Official Monster Raving Loony Party), so cannot use defence that continued lack of electoral success is some kind of badge of honour. Has no notable members, has no notable presence in English politics, never mind British politics. Cannot be justified as a Wikipedia article. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article doesn't even try to hide how NN the party is, it lists the percentages of votes in the election seats it has contested, and it hasn't contested many! Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A party is not notable in Wikipedia terms by the percentage of votes it gets. That's a measure of how successful it is. This party has contested elections for ten or more years, most recently this year. Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. The assertion that there are "no credible third party sources" is unbelievable - the article clearly cites Sunday Mercury, Birmingham Evening Mail, Birmingham Post, Coventry Evening Telegraph, BBC News and The Guardian! Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is pretty ridiculous to assert BBC News coverage, when the BBC reference is as minimal as it is, and does not at all constitute significant covereage.  However, a registered political party which has fielded candidates and received hundreds or thousands of votes meets what I suggest should be an explicit notability standard for political parties. -- do  ncr  am  05:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:
 * Articles for deletion/4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)
 * Articles for deletion/Britannica Party (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Countryside Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)
 * Articles for deletion/Free England Party
 * Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Miss Great Britain Party
 * Articles for deletion/New Nationalist Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Roman Party
 * Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party)
 * Articles for deletion/Patriotic Socialist Party (2nd nomination)
 * For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.
 * And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):
 * Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)‎
 * Articles for deletion/Independent Green Voice
 * Articles for deletion/Scottish Democratic Alliance
 * Articles for deletion/Yorkshire First
 * I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD).  But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on.  Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.
 * Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation.  And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.
 * Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs.  This is NOT wp:canvassing;  it is appropriate to point out the commonalities;  this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages.   My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these.  I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). -- do  ncr  am  19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. -- Green  C  20:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all they satisfy WP:GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Apparently these are being discussed as one monolithic bundle even though they haven't been bundled, so I'm not exactly sure where to post this, but perhaps it is apropos to post on "The Common Good". I think has a point that the process/"tranche" of 15 AfDs was not the best way to test the waters (one or two would have been good enough for the first "round"). Instead we have this mess. This said, now that they're at AfD it's time to put up some sources! The just pointing to a policy ("per GNG") will be ignored by the closer without some explanation of the editor's background reasoning. (That's why it's an "argument to avoid".) . So it's fine to argue that it meets the general notability guideline, but why? Does it have lots of independent, reliable sourcing that discusses the party in depth? I'm seeing a lot of passing mentions in the sources on most of these articles, not a lot of depth. Specifically, as an outsider to this, I want to see discussion of at least three specific sources so I can agree that at least three sources have substantial coverage of the topic such that we can write an actual article on it. Otherwise we're looking at merges, which should be discussed on the articles' talk pages and not AfD if deletion is out of the question. (Two more pings: .) czar  ⨹   02:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment They fulfill particularly this part: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2014 (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.