Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Great Britain Party (2nd nomination)

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. Noting that from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Great Britain Party

[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)

Fails GNG and ORG. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties. No notable achievements prior to, during, or following elections, and the article is littered with bullet points of campaign issues rather than substantive content. doktorb _words^deeds 21:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 21:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 21:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See also "List of frivolous political parties" gave me a laugh though. --Micky (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous discussion was keep. Nominator has history of attempting to delete every small party; coming back a few years later for a second go is not on. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The previous discussion's keep !votes were based on claiming the subject met the GNG. However, the article is supported by trivial coverage in routine election result articles and (far more) by primary source coverage from the party's own website. All news, scholarly and book sources I can find that mention the party cover it trivially. I'd be willing to change my vote if a user could show multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage of this party. Ralbegen (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News and Electoral Commission are reliable sources. Emeraude (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emeraude:Comment Those sources prove that the party exists/existed. They do not prove notable achievements beyond standing for election, something political parties are expected to do. doktorb _words^deeds 19:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing has changed since you previoulsy nominated this article and it was kept. How many bites of the cherry do you want? Emeraude (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want an article which fails GNG deleted. You don't address my point that the citations only prove existence rather than notability so I assume you have changed your mind? Will you now vote delete? doktorb _words^deeds 20:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was clearly just a publicity stunt for the Miss Great Britain competition. There is no coverage whatsoever in news sources other than listing them in the election results, or mere passing mentions. The only substantial sources are their own published propaganda. They weren't notable when they stood for election in 2008, they weren't notable at the last AFD in 2014 when they had already been defunct for six years, they're not notable now, and since they no longer exist, they never will be. I'd almost speedy delete it as G11. SpinningSpark 02:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations show the group existed, but do not actually support the claim of notability. Election results and primary sources is just about all it amounts to. Thus far, the lone call to keep did not articulate an an actual rationale, so this atm is a unanimous call fro deletion. Zaathras (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At leat six other Wikipedia articles mention this. Anyone reading them is likely to want to know what the Miss Great Britain Party is. They are:

Haltemprice and Howden (UK Parliament constituency)

2008 Crewe and Nantwich by-election

2008 Henley by-election

Gemma Garrett

2008 Haltemprice and Howden by-election

Mad Cow-Girl

Deleting this article creates a gaping hole in the uesefuness of those articles Emeraude (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2020 (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.