Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends 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 delete. If anyone would like the article userfied, drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Party[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)

Following the precedent of recent political party deletions (see Patriotic Socialist Party and The Radical Party (UK). This party clearly fails GNG and related guidelines on notability. Has limited secondary or third party sources. Has no notable coverage during or after an election, at which results were derisory. Does not meet Wikipedia policy on notable political parties, notable organisation, or notable associated people. doktorb _words^deeds 08:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability requirements for organisations. No substantial coverage that I can find. Ralbegen (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are enough references for it to not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.143.183.208 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC) — 2.143.183.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per nom. References are passing mentions in routine election coverage: they do not satisfy GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brand, spanking, new party. Has never contested - or won - an election. Running 3 candidates: Choudhry Afzal, Coraline Aisha Corlis-Khan and Kane Khan. All coverage to date is WP:MILL mentions/listings in election coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A registered political party which contests national elections. Well-referenced and plenty of sources. Emeraude (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Get it right - it has contested elections - note use of past tense in the article! Emeraude (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My error, Party contested its only election in 2017 (I misread,) but this makes it even less notable since there has been no coverage since, and all 3 candidates lost.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Emeraude: Which notability criteria are you arguing this party meets? Ralbegen (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Emeraude: *Comment They have contested less than a handful of constituencies at a single election, with barely any coverage before or since. Wikipedia is not a directory for each and every micro-grouplet failing to save their deposits at 5vyearly intervals. doktorb _words^deeds 16:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while notability is lasting, they never got any candidates elected. I do believe parties can reach notability without that, but my BEFORE check doesn't see sufficient coverage for that. No evident single redirect target Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If removed, future readers of the articles on East Ham (UK Parliament constituency), Hackney North and Stoke Newington (UK Parliament constituency) and Ilford South (UK Parliament constituency) (and later no doubt others) will come across Peoples Party and will be unable to find out from Wikipedia what it was. Is that building knowledge? Emeraude (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor will they be able to find information about who Lisa Lovebucket or Jack Bright, or any other non-notable candidates are. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate source of information. If the party doesn't meet notability requirements, it shouldn't have an article... Ralbegen (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2018 (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.