Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Democrats

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Democrats[edit]

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

Unremarkable political party. No assertion of notability throughout the article: almost all references are taken from the party's website itself. – Richard BB 12:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, can't find any sources online talking about them. They are a splinter group of another splinter group (the British Freedom Party) of what is essentially a fringe political party (the British National Party, who, in 2010 got 1.9% of the vote in the seats they stood for). This is Popular People's Front of Judea stuff. The article as it stands is also a complete mess of POV. In the infobox, for instance, their ideology is listed simply as "patriotic". (As opposed to every other political party who consider themselves unpatriotic?) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits for "Freedom Democrats" in GNews with location filtered to UK. When I express my concerns over Wiki articles being used as soapboxes for minor political parties, this is exactly the kind of article I'm talking about. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep They exist, and they are a registerd party. But thre seems to be zero coverage. So I am leaning to ~~delete~~ at this time. A source [1], anoterh [2] going for weak keepSlatersteven (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The first source Slatersteven found is mentioning the Freedom Democrats as a party "to be formed". The second source is the most trivial of trivial mentions. At this time they are non-notable, the article can be recreated if/when they become so. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in reliable sources appears to be very sparse at this time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is all news to me and I take quite a keen interest in UK politics! A couple of fringe anti-fascist organisations have noticed the splintering of the BNP, but that is hardly surprising. It would need at least one reliable news source to convince me to keep this article. Sionk (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bit UAF and hope not hate are used quite heavily as sources on the BNP and EDL pages, repeated question on RSN have found them to be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you getting them confused with Searchlight magazine? As far as I can see, UAF and Hope Not Hate are campaigning organisations, not reliable fact-checking publications. Sionk (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope not hate and UAF are used in other pages as RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:03, 9 March 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.