Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transform (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Sources provided in the discussion suggest that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Transform (political party)

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

Insufficient reliable third-party sources for the establishment of the article/Wikipedia page. Helper201 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * One of the sources used on the page, The Canary, which is used for two of the four citations is listed on Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a generally unreliable source. Therefore, the only two sources are a news article from the Morning Star and the party's own website, which are used for one citation each. Therefore, we only have two sources, the party's website which is a first-party source and therefore not preferable and one reliable citation with limited information that can be used on this Wikipedia page. It thus does not appear enough reliable information can be sourced to create an adequate page or confirm the organisation's notability for a Wikipedia page. Helper201 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics,  and United Kingdom.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the existence of the party is already established by the Morning Star article. And as the party has only been in existence for a matter of weeks, it's hardly likely to have many references yet. Before long it will be officially registered with the Electoral Commission and then we'll have official confirmation of its existence, as far as I'm aware every political party in the UK past and present, no matter how obscure has a wikipedia entry, their very existence is considered notable. So it would be unprecedented for this to be deleted. G-13114 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Support  per the reasons I noted regarding lack of sources and notability. One news source from the Morning Star with limited information is not enough to make the party notable or to establish a Wikipedia page. Also, per the above oppose comment, not every UK political party has a Wikipedia page. There's no evidence for that. See List of political parties in the United Kingdom where there are many parties listed with elected representation that don't have a Wikipedia page and nor does the National Flood Prevention Party seen at List of political parties in the United Kingdom. Transform doesn't even have a single elected representative at any level. The party as seen from the establishment of its website and when it uploaded its first YouTube video has actually existed for over 6 months, it was just officially founded just over a month ago (25 November 2023). However, its recent establishment is not a good reason to justify that it has a Wikipedia page, if anything it’s a reason against it having one until the party gets more recognition. Helper201 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Keep There are sources on it already as mentions above, and seen Pink News talk to India W about it too. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You already nominated it for deletion – you don't get to !vote again. Number   5  7  12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep While the Canary isn't a reliable source, GNG coverage met through coverage in The Voice, Novara, Weekly Worker etc. Number   5  7  12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment what evidence do we have of the reliability of the above sources? Multiple appear to be partisan and also only give brief mentions of Transform. Not much if anything we could actually use on the page. Helper201 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The entire Voice and Weekly Worker articles are about Transform. Regarding the first point, what evidence do you have that they are unreliable? The Voice is a national newspaper and from what I know, is not a partisan source; the other two are partisan sources, but I am not aware of any reliability concerns (as opposed to the likes of the Canary and Skwarkbox). Number   5  7  21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree - Keep... for now. Has most recently started to gain publicity from bigger nationals (ITV News Online, and Pink News). Both of which are generally reliable sources and are probably the strongest citations I could add for the time being and will accordingly - unlike Morning Star, which has no consensus at present, and The Canary which has outright been ruled out as unreliable by editors. There is no WP:CRYSTALBALL to guarantee that it will be heavily covered, but with them set to register with the Electoral Commission and general elections looking to be coming up later this year, I think they'll get there. Mechanical Elephant (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (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.