Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United People's Party (UK)


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

United People's Party (UK)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A very minor party. Apparently has two parish councillors, but it has received no press coverage or other outside attention. Not notable. (a prod was removed by the article creator). Fences &amp;  Windows  10:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Does seem to be a lack of coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No way does a party with two parish councillors qualify as notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The party has received coverage in local news, mentioning both the party and the party leader, and it's 2 parish councillors (which were won less than 6 months after its registration) is still more seats held than that of many other parties - including the National Front, the Communist Party of Great Britain or the Alliance for Green Socialism - all of which are on Wikipedia.
 * However, notability is primarily measured by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The National Front has been written about over the years in many different books and newspaper stories, and (although the references in the wiki article are lacking) so has the communist party. The coverage of the Alliance for Green Socialism is a bit iffy, but that's an argument to delete that article, not to keep this one. It's highly unlikely a mention in the Newbury Weekly will be enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete -- Parish councillors are NN (unless for other reasons). Accordingly a party made up only of parish councillors should be NN.  NF and CPGB are different because they were high profile campaigning organisations.  Local newspapers live off press releases, so that appearance in a local newspaper is hardly a source of notability.  Many parish councillors sit as independents, so that attaching a party label to some is hardly significant.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A political party that has succeeded electing anyone into office--even local office-- is notable, and we have a great many articles on those that have never even accomplished that, but has ereceived news coverage as here. Notable on both counts.  DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you decided all any political party who gets a parish councillor is elected is automatically notable. It is trivially easy to get a political party registered, Parish Council elections are very often uncontested, and the power and significance of typical Parish Councillors is microscopic. It is difficult for the opposition leader of a major local authority to pass notability, and I don't see how an organisation encompassing two Parish councillors can be considered any more important. I'm happy to discuss notability per WP:GNG, but I wouldn't normally view an organisation notable just because of a few minor stories in the very local papers. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, where's the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? I'm always happy to keep topics when they meet the general notability guideline, but this doesn't. It's a party made up of two teenage brothers who have been co-opted to the local parish council, and you want to keep it when it has no sources at all? This idea that any party with a parish councillor "elected" is notable is completely wrong. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable local micro party with, as far as I can tell, no significant coverage in reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The party makes up a third of a local parish council and is the largest party on the council (with others taking the form of 1 Conservative and 3 independents). It has played a key role developing the community via the Parish Plan and has attracted media attention, all be it limited, as a result. On the greater scale of things, it is rather insignificant. Having said that, it is certainly worthy of notoriety on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upp01 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Upp01 is the article creator, btw. Arguing that your party is "certainly worthy of notoriety on wikipedia" because it has a couple of parish council seats is not going to wash. None of the content is even verifiable, let alone showing signs of having received significant outside attention (which is what notability boils down to). Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search (with the search term: "United People's Party" Enborne) returns no results. Having reviewed the article, I read the organization "holds two seats on the local council of Enborne, a civil parish". The civil parish is the "the lowest tier of local government, below district and county councils". Clearly, this does not establish notability. This article should be deleted for failing Verifiability, a core policy on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2010 (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.