Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Alliance (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. ✗plicit 03:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Alliance (UK)[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. Party does not pass GNG or related policies, particularly around political parties. Unknown group with no notability prior to 2021 Scottish Parliament election, so I have suspicion that the article has been thrown up to provide publicity for on-going election campaign, and is possibly breaking BLOG, UNDUE, NOTNEWS and others. No notable election results to date. No notable election campaigns. Sources only prove the party exists, not that they are notable. Content of article does not diffuse my concerns. doktorb _words^deeds 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only coverage I could find that wasn't a passing mention of a candidate they're standing is the non-independent local Northern Scot source. Everything in the article is a primary source asserting existence, other than a source about Utton which doesn't mention the party. So GNG is not met. — Bilorv (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough independent coverage. Jdcooper (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only coverage is passing reference to it standing, which doesn't really cover notability, and all the sources seem to be from the party itself? Unless something more substantial comes up, yeah, not a gazetteer for political parties. BitterGiant (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG per editors above. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick search for sources, I agree. The article as it stands is sourced (except for the one part that is background and not about this subject) only to people talking about themselves, and being able to claim whatever they like, and other sources to be found are the same. There is no evidence that anyone independent of the subject with a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy has said anything about this subject. A politician resigned. All of the rest could be a complete fiction made up and put on a WWW site for all that we know. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Not enough independent coverage available, fails GNG. Setreis (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons see my erudite colleagues. Is it snowing? -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 14:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for the time being) - the party is contesting elections in the UK, keep until 6th May 2021. If they fail to win any elected representatives perhaps Merge with an article of Libertarian parties. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This violates WP:CRYSTAL. If the topic later becomes notable then there is no prejudice against recreation. — Bilorv (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not Wikipedia's job to advertise undocumented political parties. This is an encyclopaedia, not a hosting service. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This party is NOT an "undocumented political party" - it is registered as a political party by the Electoral Commission. There are plenty of political parties that were one-off parties - see Natural Law Party for instance - with entries on Wikipedia ... and before I am accused of being biased, I am not a supporter of Freedom Alliance, I just believe that this party should have the same level of coverage on Wikipedia as many other parties of a similar nature - to single this party out would make this appear to be a "witch-hunt" against this party! Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you give an example of a party with a similar amount of reliable, independent source coverage to this one that has an article? — Bilorv (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, but it is undocumented, as I pointed out earlier. You want to show otherwise? Produce good documentation from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that aren't the people concerned themselves. So far, there's none at all. Have you even tried to find any? You do not mention doing so. The amount of such documentation that exists in the world is our guide to how much there should be in Wikipedia. And we don't care when the elections are. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not an advertising billboard nor a free WWW host. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Charming ... well if you want to create a lot of broken links, go for it ... Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Another editor I won't name has made these kinds of arguments in AfDs before. "People will be frustrated by red links," "the gaps in election articles will frustrate people wanting to know more," etc. The broken links argument has never washed with me. If a party is not very notable, as evidenced by getting say 100 or 200 votes in an election, then even without getting into WP:SYNTH we can conclude that even fewer people will be looking at Wikipedia for that party's manifesto. If Freedom Alliance have any importance or notability, let that be proven, either now or through the elections next month, and then the article can be created if it needs to be. But I keep coming back to the same sentence in my nominations for a reason: Wikipedia is not a place to host one-page profiles for parties regardless of notability. If you can't persuade voters, you shouldn't persuade Wikipedia editors. doktorb _words^deeds 21:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment (for the time being - there is no hurry to delete, it can wait until after the UK local elections) - in any case many political parties with no representation have Wikipedia articles. Is it people outwith the United Kingdom clamouring for the deletion, without any knowledge of the UK political scene? If they get no seats, then there might be an argument for deletion, although as previous said there are many political parties with no seats/no representation with articles on Wikipedia. Removing before 6 May 2021 will create a lot of broken links on other Wikipedia pages. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm from the UK, not that it matters. Rhyddfrydol2, can you please remove the second bolded "keep"? You already put one above. It is confusing. — Bilorv (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind confusing, it's cheating. Mind you, this is politics So I suppose we should behave like politicians. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, but just like the UK's elections, we don't have a "one person one vote" system, and unlike the UK's elections, the purpose of these discussions is to assess what the community as a whole thinks. So the closing admin isn't just doing a tally, but assessing the weight of arguments on each side, and adding more bold doesn't give something more weight. — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhyddfrydol2: This party's representation, or lack thereof, is not relevant. WP:GNG states that any topic requires coverage in reliable, independent sources to verify the information, and establish notability. That coverage does not seem to exist in this case. Jdcooper (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at the moment I do not see anything that would make this a notable party. As others have said there is no sign of a significant level of coverage. It's a relatively new party so this might, conceivably, change in the future, but as it stands it lacks the notability that would be expected for the subject of an article. Dunarc (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP, no establishment of GNG. — Czello 16:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 07:55, 14 April 2021 (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.