Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party) (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Common Good (political party)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A small UK political party of no note. No mps, few votes, article could be construed as an advert. Refs while present don't confer notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment This, along with several other articles on smaller political parties, was the subject of AFD less than a year ago. The result then was keep. Nothing has changed to alter that. I wonder if the present nominator has read the previous discussion(s). Emeraude (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that this article will keep coming up for deletion for the reasons in my nomination. Almost a year has passed since the last afd, a different afd often gives a different result sometimes in much less than a years time. I voted delete in the last afd so I'm aware of the previous discussion. Szzuk (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)55
 * Add. Procedurally the prior afd was a mess, with 15 other afd's being lumped in after nomination. So half of that afd refers to this article and the other half to this one and 15 others. I think the result was a foregone conclusion because editors don't want to review 15 articles in one go. Szzuk (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a joint nom and not all articles were kept. AusLondonder (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG because of coverage in reliable media: Birmingham Mail, BBC in addition to sources already in article.  It is true that the sources are far form flattering, but they are in major news media.  Moreover, while  "No mps, few votes" is true, it is beside the point.  Notability, for political parties as for everything else, can be conferred by the news coverage. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- I think we have articles on small revolutionary socialist parties and Monster Raving Loony Party. The electoral success of most of these parties has been similarly negligible.  My impression is that this is a one man band, and a serial failed candidate.  It may come up again, so that a list of his failures may be useful: that is all this seems to be.  You never know, if Northfield had a parish council he might have eben elected, though that would not make him notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I support the lowest standard possible for registered political parties. A credible encyclopaedia has a duty to inform readers in such topic areas. Easily has enough coverage. Also, notability is not determined by number of votes or seats. AusLondonder (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2015 (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.