Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Party[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. No evidence of notability or notable people involved. Little to notable or credible election results. Little to no credible third party sources. Standing in a high profile by-election does not make a party notable by proxy. doktorb _words^deeds 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. doktorb _words^deeds 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: using WP:GNG, there's a Guardian article (source #2 in the reflist) that contains significant coverage, written by an independent and reliable secondary source. Source #4 is written by the president of the UK Liberal Democrats, so It probably doesn't meet the GNG requirements for a source. Source #5 is written by a local news website (which I presume to be reliable and independent, and the party is the focus of the entire article). That's two sources that meet WP:SIRS, so I say keep the page. Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the sources listed in the comment above meet WP:SIRS, due to being heavily reliant on quotes from party leadership —siro χ o 01:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bwmdjeff. While both of the cited sources contain some quotes from party leadership (as one would expect), they also contain significant amounts of independent content, so it seems to me that SIRS is met. -- Visviva (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIRS.2 says Be completely independent of the article subject, emphasis mine. To me that suggests that stories with quotes from organization leadership do not meet the criteria. —siro χ o 09:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(On stumbling back across this conversation:) I don't think a close reading of WP:SIRS bears that out. Elsewhere in the same guideline we read Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (my emphasis). Putting those together would suggest that a source is "totally independent" if it includes (a substantial amount of) opinion/analysis/investigation from a source that is totally unaffiliated with the subject. That makes more sense to me than for a single quote to act as a poison pill, which would be problematic as noted by Indefensible below. -- Visviva (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while the party does present potential implications for future politics, and there are some sources, this doesn't help much. Thorough evaluation is required in this case. BoraVoro (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage to support notability in my opinion, they are reporting on the subject and throwing some quotes in for comprehensiveness. If including any quoted material were enough to break source independence then it would be difficult to have encyclopedic coverage for a subject like politics that is largely based on the quoted material of candidates. - Indefensible (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for another week because there are some questions brought up about the independence of sources. There has also been some sources added since the nomination that should also receive some consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but change title to Climate Party in United Kingsdom or United Kingsdom Climate Party or similar. --Bduke (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.