Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Independence Party (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Although my sympathy lies with the "delete" !votes here (and ignoring a few SPAs that may or may not be here because of off-wiki canvassing), there clearly is a consensus to keep this article. Any issues with promotionalism can be addressed by normal editing and talk page discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Independence Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Northern Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested CSD. Party had been deleted before. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. No record or proof of notabity. Not on Register of Political Parties. Fails GNG. Clear COI and promotional editing. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United NOKingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin The party has posted a Twitter post to this deletion discussion which might cause WP:CANVAS issues See [1] doktorb wordsdeeds 21:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for bringing this here - this is the correct approach to consider this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have to agree with doktorb- wikipedia is not a gazetteer for every microparty under the sun (especially ones which, by their own admission, do not have electoral commission recognition). The article was quite clearly written as self-promotion by supporters ahead of the upcoming by-election, with the only citations being offered being citations that weren't considered notable enough last time this was all discussed, or a "they exist", which isn't enough to establish notability. Those citations are well enough to establish it in the wikipage for the Hartlepool by-election, but still isn't enough for its own article.BitterGiant (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Some of the arguments regarding GNG have persuaded me. I also think notability has increased since this AfD began.Delete per OP and BiitterGiant. The last AfD wasn't that long ago and very little has changed since then. — Czello 12:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has 9 references from different UK local papers as well as the national paper the Independent. It’s difficult to say given that much coverage that it isn’t notable enough to exist. Especially given most of those articles are exclusively about the party itself.
They are now running in the Hartlepool by-election - that is the change in circumstances. I wouldn't expect them to win that but I wouldn't expect them to lost their deposit either (i.e. they will get more than 5% of the vote). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that this is against WP:CRYSTAL doktorb wordsdeeds 14:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
only the claim about the percentage of the vote they will get is crystal balling - which will be addressed by the first polls that are done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Getting involved since I received a delete notice while I only created a helpful redirect after a deletion that I supported. If a party is now officially running, there may be a case to keep. Previously, I favored deleting because the party did not exist. In that case, the discussion belongs in the broader movement. gidonb (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the last AfD had more support for keeping than deleting, and since then their standing in a by-election only increases their notability. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it increases their publicity. Not necessarily their notabity. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The relevant standard is WP:NORG. We've got multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV in the article. The publications include ones covering all Yorkshire (i.e., regional sources per WP:AUD). I've got questions about whether the coverage is WP:LASTING but the coverage of the Hartlepool byelection appears to address this. Registration or not doesn't matter. Previous deletion doesn't matter given the coverage that has come out since deletion. COI/WP:PROMO doesn't matter if the article can be edited to be WP:NPOV, and it obviously can be. The nom is correct that Wiki is not a gazeteer for every minor party - but we certainly can have articles on those that receive significant coverage in reliable sources, and this one has. FOARP (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The party's foundation got a fair bit of coverage in the left-wing press and their decision to run in Hartlepool has gathered a fair bit of interest as well. Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the original rationale. Other than an expressed intention to stand in a by-election, I haven't seen anything to suggest a functioning political party rather than a very active Twitter account. The current assortment of pages for UK parties already needs pruning and this would make a bad situation worse. MegaPowerTape (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it doesn't matter whether it has achieved anything yet, there is significant coverage from multiple sources. Warofdreams talk 23:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia by it's own definition provides summaries of knowledge. The fact this political movement has members and right to stand by the commission makes it something worth knowing. Pruning electorate and official parties from Wikipedia

which is there to be an independent wiki (Without political bias). This harms the ability for people to make informed choices if only major parties get coverage. It hasn't gone against the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. People have the right to free information. Some people above said the page was biased - change it to be unbiased don't just delete it. Sangle1234 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Warofdreams and Jdcooper. Sourcing is publicity. Sourcing is not notability. Publicity is not notability. What have they achieved prior to the election being called, which, as of writing, it has yet to be? doktorb wordsdeeds 23:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination states that this article fails WP:GNG. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't see how this article fails any of those criteria, my subjective take on "what they've achieved" aside. Jdcooper (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what have they done Jdcooper? The sources prove they exist. They sources do not prove achievement. They're a political party with no candidates, no campaigns, no votes, no MPs, no councillors, as far as you or I are concerned no leaflet delivered, nothing. Is this the bar we set ourselves for inclusion on Wikipedia, that they have a lot of sources? What have the NIP actually done? doktorb wordsdeeds 23:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be clear they have a candidate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really much of an achievement or establishes notability. Every minor/insignificant party that intends to stand in an election has to have at least 1 candidate. — Czello 10:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite true Eraserhead1. They are not registered with the Electoral Commission so cannot use their own name yet, on any possible ballot paper, ad until the Statement of Persons Nominated is published, they have no candidate. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the party lacks clear notability other than trivia-related references to it in the media, and as other editors have commented, only exists in a very rudimentary state for now. If the party does gain momentum such an article could be recreated. --RaviC (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are no less notable than the Yorkshire Party, the North East Party or the North Party. Unreal7 (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is against WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. They've had substantial coverage and are notable enough now that they're standing in a by-election. Unreal7 (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:ORGCRIT and of interest to our readers. A resounding (more impactful than strong?) keep, now that the party was incorporated, is running, and receives plenty of attention. Laters, gidonb (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG as it did on the last occasion. ItsKesha (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order The article was deleted through AfD last time, and should possibly have not been recreated doktorb wordsdeeds 18:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi doktorb, isn't the very establishment and first participation in an election a substantial and even defining change for a political party? Forget for a moment the keep/delete discussion, this change makes it fair to reestablish the article for community consideration. gidonb (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems they're about to run in a by-election, they have made some waves on social media.Zellfire999 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being active on Twitter is not a valid AfD argument doktorb wordsdeeds 20:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is decently-sourced to several newspaper stories specifically discussing the party and its candidacy in Hartlepool. Even if it comes to nothing more than this, coverage seems enough to establish notability. (Ladbrokes are currently listing them - an admittedly distant - third to win Hartlepool, and a former Labour MP has expressed support for them; so I would suspect there is more to come, but what exists now seems sufficient for the basic bar of having an article.) TSP (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage and they will likely be registered and stand in the Hartlepool by-election. JJARichardson (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Standing in by-election, no valid reason to delete except to stifle debate. UK politics currently fractured and suffering from in-fighting, including spurious deletion attempts by political parties of the entries for other parties. TiredAndConfused (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TiredAndConfused (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • KEEP Article is sourced with several reputable references, passes WP:GNG and Ladbrokes are now putting them ahead of Liberal Democrats in odds for Hartlepool by-election. Have also been endorsed by an ex-Labour MP. I would also like to note significant bias from doktorb whose own bio notes them as a Liberal Democrat and a "deletionist." Ohperdita (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ohperdita (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    • @Ohperdita: Please assume good faith. Doktorb's political views are irrelevant to this discussion. — Czello 22:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Czello: On the contrary, I'm a trained historian, looking at bias and motives is absolutely critical to any kind of primary and secondary source analysis. It is difficult to assume good faith when the evidence points to the contrary. And no, I have not been canvassed to partake in this discussion. How about we assume some good faith there? I would also like to add, just because someone rarely edits, does not mean they cannot add to a discussion when they see fit to do so. I thought Wikipedia welcomed input? -- Ohperdita (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ohperdita: That's not how we operate on Wikipedia. We discuss the merit of people's arguments, not trying to interpret their intention by looking at their political views. And I didn't add the canvass tag to your post -- you should take that up with whoever did. — Czello 07:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Czello: Yes, and we are attempting to determine the merit of whether this passes WP:GNG, are we not? The article clearly does, and the commentary to delete, which is what I am referring to, not the content of the article, contains bias in various comments from editors. It is fair to note that an editor has taken it upon themselves to be dedicated to deleting smaller Party pages, as it reflects significant bias, because WP:WIN and let's face reality here, how about the user previously mentioned WP:Admit at this point?-- Ohperdita (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Ohperdita: Determining the merit of whether this passes GNG can be done without trying to figure out someone's motivations. I don't think this article clearly does -- if it was that clear then there wouldn't have been people (myself included) who voted to delete. It's looking like it's going to be a keep though -- which is fine, that's just the way some AfDs go. But the comments of people who voted to delete (including OP) are just as valid as yours. His political leanings are irrelevant (and this is precisely the reason why I don't state my political leanings -- because it leads to accusations like these). — Czello 17:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Czello: You have invalidated your own argument, because you clearly understand that stating political leanings does cause issues. I also in my OP referred to said person self-describing as a "deletionist," which is in and of itself problematic, because that sets an agenda for how you are assessing anything. If you describe yourself as a "deletionist" (which is an agenda), you are stating that Wikipedia is about winning, when we know that WP:WIN and WP:BATTLE. It makes it difficult to assume good faith when an agenda has been clearly set out that is about winning. This is a quote from doktorb's user page "However, the increasing number of successful AfDs proves me correct and my opponents wrong." How can this not contradict WP:WIN? -- Ohperdita (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Ohperdita: At last someone who reads my profile! I'll happily respond to this point. Over the years, I've nominated many, many political parties for AfD, and faced tonnes of accusations. I've faced people saying that I must be biased, I must be judgemental, I must be anti-democratic. I really am not. Wikipedia is based on notability and yet political parties seem to get almost a free pass. I tried, years ago, to create a policy for political party inclusion, you'll find it on my page or talk page somewhere. We're still in need of an agreeable policy. My opponents, as I phrased it, are the same editors who would vote "Keep" without engaging in any details. They just saw me as an irritant and voted Keep every time. I am happy to be on the winning side of the argument. I am happy to see non-notable articles being deleted. I don't hide from being a deletionist. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohperdita: That doesn't invalidate my argument at all. What I'm saying is that people will stop reading what I'm actually arguing and will instead try to assume ill will based on my political views, when in fact there is none. — Czello 07:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what changed in December between the last AfD and now, that would serve to justify its recreation? The fact they're running a candidate? It still fails WP:NORG (no, a couple regional news articles don't cut it in spite of all the POV-pushing going on here), and should be salted to avoid any future disruption. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer - "regional" sources are explicitly counted as counting towards sources that pass WP:AUD ("Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability."). There might well be vote-stacking going on here, but that doesn't change the fact that this appears to pass WP:NORG. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does it pass WP:NORG? There are only two new sources since the last go-around, one is for what looks like a blog with 2,000 subscribers, the other is the local Hartlepool paper. I can't believe we're allowing this clearly promotional article on the basis of a couple regional news reports. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) You're assuming the previous AFD came to the correct decision. Each AFD has to stand on it's own legs. The decision seems to have been a reaction against (deeply unwise) vote-stacking by supporters of the party. 2) Again, regional coverage (e.g., significant coverage in a source covering north-eastern England) is a pass for WP:AUD - and only a single instance of this is necessary besides a local source ("at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary"), which is also present. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's 8 sources in the article with an access date of February or March this year... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment– I’d like to point out that the previous decision to delete was controversial and the number of delete arguments was much smaller than the number of keep arguments. While no formal deletion review process was carried out on that AfD decision, it would be a mistake to treat it as at all decisive- so the “delete now because it was deleted then” argument does not hold water at all. I would consider launching a deletion review of that December decision, but it seems unnecessary given the current AfD. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD isn't a vote but a debate in which strength of arguments matter. The article appears to have been re-created from a mirror page based on a couple of the access dates in the article, meaning there are WP:G4 issues and attribution issues. And the only thing which appears to have changed is the fact that there's now an article or two saying they're running a candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 17:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, however, unusual for an AfD closer to close in favour of the outcome far fewer people agreed with, and it would be reasonable to argue that the closer did not choose the fairest outcome of who "won the debate". Chessrat (talk, contributions) 01:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They’ve had regional and national press coverage specifically about them. That’s generally more than enough for an article to exist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's clear POV-pushing from people trying to have this kept, both at this AfD and the last AfD, even though the notability is exceptionally marginal at best. Just because the closer takes a minority viewpoint doesn't mean it's wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that there clearly is an attempt at vote stacking going on. However, I think this article is still a keep even discounting the content-less support votes. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Entire categories of articles such as secondary schools have been considered notable enough for articles since the beginning yet have vastly less prominent coverage than this political party which has had national press articles on it as the subject as well as lots of regional press articles as well - and this covered both the parties launch and its by-election campaign. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Czello 16:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is firstly only an essay, and secondly makes much more sense when we are talking about individual articles that are counter-examples rather than entire categories. It's not like secondary schools have slipped through the net. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they have slipped through the net. Perhaps some of them should be deleted. Either way, the argument to keep this article should stand on its own merits without comparisons to other, supposedly less-notable articles out there. — Czello 16:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from public schools and other high profile private schools I'd expect 99% of all secondary schools and high schools in the UK and America have less prominent coverage than this political party. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The prominence of coverage of those schools is irrelevant to this discussion. As I say, perhaps some of those school articles should be deleted. — Czello 16:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really arguing that the vast majority of secondary school articles that have existed for 10-15 years or more should be deleted? And there are plenty more entire categories of articles where the coverage is extremely limited and revolves around mentions in specialist books etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that their existence is irrelevant to this article's existence. That's precisely why WP:OTHERSTUFF was written. It's a fallacy to suggest that this article should exist simply because they do (why is doing it that way round the default, and not the alternative -- deleting both?). Also the length of the article's existence doesn't matter either. At one point we had an article on every single Pokemon and it was generally accepted that was the norm -- but after several years that changed and they were deleted. As I say, the justification of this article existing has to stand on its own merits without saying "but what about x and y". — Czello 16:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Individual Pokemon never had national press coverage or it's equivalent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my point there -- I'm saying they existed for years and were eventually deleted, meaning the length of schools having articles doesn't matter. Ultimately, before we get too off-topic, what I'm driving at is that it's not a valid argument to say "there are less notable articles out there, therefore we should keep this article". — Czello 16:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but individual Pokemon were much more an exception as an article category than secondary schools, articles we have on small villages, small train stations etc generally also have exceedingly limited coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're still missing the point or focusing on the wrong thing. — Czello 20:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point which perhaps I’m making poorly is that half the articles in this whole encyclopaedia have worse sourcing that this one, so unless you propose an extremely radical cull this one meets GNG. Now sure it’s possible when there was the initial excitement that the guy who founded this party would get immediately bored and nothing would happen, so I get why it was deleted the first time. However it’s clear he’s submitted to the electoral commission and given the current excited now that seems highly unlikely - and even if he did quit someone else would build on what he’s done already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
so unless you propose an extremely radical cull this one meets GNG. That's not how this works. GNG isn't some average bar that raises or lowers based on how well sourced other articles are. Again this is precisely why WP:OTHERSTUFF was written -- how well sourced other articles are is irrelevant to this debate. — Czello 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that how WP:GNG is interpreted in practice is very relevant. I think this article does satisfy any reasonable interpretation on its own merits btw.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Czello, if we want to be strictly literalist about WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It is the nom + others who are adding extra "what have they done?!" bars for notability beyond that. And I get why, my keep vote is kinda weak. But if GNG is so sacrosanct, as written, then this article clearly passes that bar. Jdcooper (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It has become more notable since it was founded, it might not have passed WP:GNG in the past, but it does now. I would add that regional level media sources are acceptable to establish notability if no better ones exist. It is simply stated that national level ones are preferable. As a regionalist party, regional level media seems appropriate for satisfying WP:GNG. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More national level sources, from "The Chartist" and Red Pepper. There is also a link to the London Economic that for some reason WIKIPEDIA thinks is spam, not sure why, but hey ho.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I question why some coverage in some tiny news organisations (with questionable reliability I might add) makes the party notable in any real sense. As has been pointed out by the OP, "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties." Alssa1 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain which sources you consider to have "questionable reliability" and why? Otherwise it is simply an assertion without any weight, and can simply be ignored for the purposes of the deletion debate. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Boynamedsue: Firstly, for the avoidance of doubt, you are not the one who determines or defines which positions can be "ignored" during a deletion discussion. Secondly the mentioning of this organisation by some small far-left publications does not make the organisation notable or credible under the WP guidelines; for the same reason we don't make a page for every minuscule neo-nazi party mentioned in far-right publications. Thirdly, as has been stated, wikipedia is not a gazette for every conceivable political organisation in the UK or beyond, and therefore you're going to have to come up with a pretty good reason as to why we should waive our guidelines in this case. Finally, given the fact that the organisation has effectively engaged in canvassing in an attempt to prevent its deletion (again), I would say the organisation has undermined its credibility further. Alssa1 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are decided on the basis of arguments, your first post was not an argument, it was an assertion. However, your recent post does contain argument, so it merits an answer. I assume you are referring to the sources I added? Red Pepper is RS for notability, by any reasonable standards. It is also not the only source, there are about 7 on linked on the article. Wikipedia is a gazette of everything that meets its guidelines on notability, which is to be given significant coverage in RS, which the NIP has. If the organisation is engaged in canvassing, please link to where this is occurring. Even if this is the case, I personally feel it to be matched by opposition on this page which is motivated by political animosity rather than any genuine concern about notability. But tbh, it doesn't matter particularly, as WP:GNG is clearly satisfied in this case. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The independent isn’t a small left wing publication. It’s a major UK national newspaper. And the Northern Echo is a regional paper. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I believe this article meets the threshold for notability, it's received widespread news coverage in a variety of mainstream and credible sources and given the pace it is growing on social media the only way is up.- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability established. As always, some people have a hard time understanding that the notability of a party or some other political project does not depend on political preference or feasability. --Prügelprinz (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles about the party in The Northern Echo, The Scotsman and the Sunderland Echo are Sufficient for the WP:GNG as all three are significant (ie the party is the main topic of the article) reliable (these are long-published local/regional newspapers in the UK) independent (it would be more-or-less illegal for such coverage to not be independent) sources. As it stands this article is undoubtedly at the bottom level of notability, but (1) it still passes the test for me and (2) the balance of probability lies in notability increasing signficiantly in the next 6 weeks with their stated intention to stand at a forthcoming parliamentary by-election. But in case I get accused of crystall-balling, it already passes GNG for me. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Clearly meets (actually substantially exceeds) the requirements of WP:GNG. The organisation having mentioned this AfD on their Twitter feed does not affect the question of whether the organisation is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not. The organisation being listed or not listed on some Register of Political Parties does not affect the question of whether the organisation is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not. There being or not being a COI issue does not affect the question of whether the organisation is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not (and can be addressed elsewhere). The article in its current state does not look overtly promotional to me; and in any case such issues can be resolved by ordinary editing and do not affect the question of whether the organisation is notable by Wikipedia's standards or not. MPS1992 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t delete it! This is a political party and it is helpful to have all the information in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.12.203 (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With coverage in The Independent, a major paper with international readership, and several regional papers, the organization would appear to meet the notability requirements at WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV. While canvasing is concerning, equally concerning is the willingness of the nominator and those crying deletion to ignore a clear policy based rationale for keeping the article. With sources at this level, there is no policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, I find this whole discussion baffling. There seems to be a desire to discard GNG on the basis that the N.I.P has not satisfied subjective criteria of relevance that supporters of deletion are loath to clearly define. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This party has attracted significant attention, which is obvious in the media coverage it's getting. And the NIP is just over a month away from contesting a parliamentary by-election in Hartlepool. Extua (talk) 21:14, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_Independence_Party_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1014487486"