Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy 2015

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 redirect to Andreas Whittam Smith. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy 2015[edit]

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

This reads like a blog or advertising piece, which is against our policies. This is a political movement without much prominent coverage. There is no prominent campaigns outside the Internet. There has been no election results so far, so they fail our policies on political parties. The article is not neutral, and has the look of an advert. doktorb _words^deeds 08:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On balance I would keep; I have seen worse-written initial articles with a greater degree of self-promotion and they claim "A dramatic step forward for Democracy 2015: Adam Lotun to stand in Corby by-election on November 15" The Independent 9 October 2012 to be fighting their first election at Corby (although I do not believe they are registered with the Electoral Commission so Lotun will appear as an Ind on the ballot) Nedrutland (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alas search results are not linkable so you will need to search it yourself; the party was registered on Oct 10 based searching the Electoral Commissions database. However, having seen worse-written articles isn't a good reason to keep, nor is having one candidate stand for election. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now -- It is too early to tell whether this will prove to be a significant initiative or a damp squib. This can only be assessed in 6-12 months. I cannot believe that the Electoral Commission would allow the name, for what seems essentilly to be trying to becoem a 4th or 5th force in British politics. I suspect that like most "independent" parties it will sink with little trace. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The article as it stands is a soapbox and not an article actually about "Democracy 2015". That is potentially fixable with a rewrite. Looking for independent reliable sources, all I can find is coverage from the Independent which in this case is not very independent as Democracy 2015 is the brainchild of Andreas Witham Smith, founder of the The Independent as noted in this article. I've seen no notice taken of this in other reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - I think CoffeeCrumb's suggestion of a redirect is workable. There is no mention of Democracy 2015 at Andreas Whittam Smith right now but that can easily be fixed. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As noted above, the article isn't really about Democracy 2015, it's essentially an argument for why Democracy 2015 should be instituted, with the subject of the article barely getting a cameo. Andreas Whittam Smith is notable, however, so I think it should be a redirect rather than delete (and there's no real content as of yet to merge). There's more of an argument for having a section about Democracy 2015 within Smith's page, but there really aren't enough in the way of independent sources for page to itself at this point.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2012 (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.