Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Party[edit]

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

A curiosity of a party, yes, but not notable. Only present as an also-ran in one specific kind of elections, no cultural importance, no notability, almost no credible third party coverage. Nothing to indicate importance, and nothing to suggest is should remain on Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 01:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has also ran in council elections in Reading, as the article says with a source. He ran in two European elections, the £5,000 to run making it a notable repeat feat. With the range of far-right/left parties featured on this encyclopedia without even running in any large-scale elections, I don't really see the harm in keeping the Roman Party here '''tAD''' (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete this and anyone later looking at the articles on the constituencies contested by the party will be left in total ignorance about what the results show. If you can't look up Roman Party in Wikipedia, where can you? Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of a number of UK political party AFDs opened by same nominator. All seem to have been registered political parties. This one fielded a candidate in at least one election, received thousands of votes, and has received coverage. As with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG has been shown when editors responded, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those other campaigns, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs in a campaign are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others. --do ncr am 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, as judged by significant coverage in reliable sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, all sources are passing mentions, with the exception of one in-depth source in the local newspaper, which isn't enough. Secret ^account 23:35, 3 December 2014 (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.