Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Love 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

One Love Party

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/One Love Party
• Articles for deletion/One Love Party (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/One Love Party (3rd nomination)

One Love Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable party. Essentially a vanity project for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination). The article was deleted back in May Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Love Party. Coverage is routine election coverage. Fails WP:NORG. As near as I can tell the sources in this version are, in bulk, the same sources about the London Mayoral campaign which were deemed inadequate for notability at the last AfD. Jbh^Talk 10:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 11:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep I am in no way a member or related to this party but it is notable. They've stood in a variety of seats in varying levels of government, the citations have been vastly improved since the last deletion. They feature in a large amount of maintstream, individual and foreign media... the article has been updated repeatedly and keeps getting new citations daily. As per the speedy deletion removal note on the talk page, if you look at the revision history you can clearly see the improvements and citations being added. This deletion discussion is jumping the gun but even so, the article easily stands on it's own. Is it a major party? No. Is it a minor, notable party? Yes. Drowz0r (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Further to the OP's new insert on where the citations are focusing on; naturally the frontier launch/candidacy of any party creates a lot of press so you'll probably see that in bulk for some time, especially when that candidate is also the continual leader of the party. Even so, there are now six citations (naturally not including links to Love Party's own site and such) that don't reference the Mayoral election and indeed reference their Witney candidate with some information on her. You can bet your bottom dollar more will be added shortly Drowz0r (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Some of the "Mayor election" pieces are a bit confusing. There were actually two mayor elections, a by-election for hackney and a London mayoral. Some of the wording and citations seem to confuse the two and it may appear that only one notable event happened, while there were actually two.Drowz0r (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Parties whose average number of votes are in the low double digits (32, 34, 44) are simply not notable no matter the temporary splash or even repeated curiousity press coverage. Jbh^Talk 11:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC) You are correct. Raw vote count is a poor way to judge notability. Struck. Last edited: 12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

To count a party's notability by how many people vote for them is to fundamentally misunderstand UK politics under the FPTP system, secondly there are dozens of political party pages with precisely double digit votes that have been deemed notable so I do not see where that method of deletion you have suggested has ever been enacted. It is near impossible to compare different constituencies and even more so different levels of elections (national, local, etc) on vote count but generally it is a better indicator to go off vote share and not vote number. If the only press this party had was a bullet pointed name and a vote result in the press I would agree but they have consistently been given an allotment of space in every press piece covering the election as to what their policies and backgrounds are. Some press have reported, some have criticized, some have supported, analysed. There isn't a common curiosity theme, there is a variety of different media going for different things. I know because I've been improving the article for a few hours now and read through the articles and watched the videos. For example, one exposes a suggested military coup from the party. Seems to be around 10 citations now which are not relating to the london mayor thing btw Drowz0r (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I will dig through the sources you have added later in the day. I have been through so many overblown, trivial and downright deceptive sources in relation to Ankit Love and his projects on Wikipedia that I am very skeptical of anything relating to that topic. (This article also has the massive citation overkill the past articles showed. I would be much more convinced by a half dozen or so good citations rather than 37, most of which were discounted in the last AfD.) In general though, small protest parties get coverage for the elections they contest and not much else. If there is significant, sustained coverage in relation to the party, not PR stunts and wild claims by Love to get press, I will reconsider.

It is the existance sustained coverage, outside of coverage of individual contests, which would indicate notability to me. Jbh^Talk 12:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A second set of eyes is very welcome, if nothing else, I typo a lot. I did notice before I started editing the piece it only included the positive pieces from the press and I've been adjusting that, such as the bonkers military coup suggestion was missing along with having fashion designers do school uniforms. I think it's noteworthy to include Love's father wished he had not gone into politics too and that the twitter account seems to have been deactivated after receiving a massive (fake?) boost of subscribers - I guess that also happened here on wiki with the citation overkill. I'm just wary of dismissing the article due to it being a vanity project. It might well be a vanity project from Ankit but with some injected balance, it can be made into something more educational as oppose to propaganda (I consider UKIP a Farage vanity project but hey ho~). Drowz0r (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak delete I tagged this as a speedy delete, as a recreation of a recently deleted article. The article was, this time, created by User:Stephen Nightingale, an WP:SPA. The tag was then removed in good faith by User:Drowz0r: as someone who was not the author of the article, that is allowed as a judgement call. However, a new AfD discussion is an unsurprising development. Drowz0r has been working on the article to improve it, as have I. I thought about bringing this to AfD myself, but I'm somewhat undecided as to whether an article is warranted or not. The One Love Party appears to be a rich guy's vanity project that has had zero psephological impact. However, I also agree with the discussion above that vote share alone is not the decisive factor in determining notability. If Ankit Love or whoever is bankrolling the party wants to throw their money away on lost deposits, that's their choice. Can you "buy" notability by just standing at lots of elections? Perhaps. There has been some RS coverage of this party and continues to be. However, it is all in the context of specific campaigns, so I think WP:NPOL/WP:NORG do point to this being insufficient. Whether the article stays or goes, I entirely agree with User:Jbhunley's concerns about all things Ankit Love on Wikipedia. Vigilance is required. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've actually found a number of citations now that are not related to the elections, especially the mayoral one that can be added but I'm super swamped - I plan to add them tomorrow, but here is another: https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2016/10/26/hackney-central-masterplan-resurrecting-hackney-brook-ideas-feedback/

• Delete - My reasons for deletion in the previous Afd remain valid - this is not a serious political party but a means for self promotion by a narcissist. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. There is some coverage in WP:RS but this is to be expected during an election campaign as the nominator has stated. Besides, if you invent flamboyant, outrageous policies solely for the purpose of getting attention, you will succeed.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Based on the last AfD this article had attracted vandals most likely from the significant amount of news coverage for the London Mayor election at the time. According to User:JMiall in the previous debate it even had more hits than the Green Party (UK) page at the time. So well done guys last time in deleting it, as it seemed that must have been the only way to get things under control. That made sense then, but now it’s a completely different and normal article and all the bizarre attention and vandalism has subsided. There are now notable citations about two more candidates over four more elections since the Mayor of London and the last AfD. No doubt this is an odd-ball even wacky party, but if other minor and odd UK parties like Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog that’s just done one election with 30 votes can be considered notable or the Roman Party that also seems like a self-funded vanity project for one guy, then come on One Love is certainly more notable then those and so should be kept. Taking about bizarre attention grabbing narcissism along with buying notability on steroids, what about Donald Trump or his Mexico-wall idea? I really wish those could be taken off here too. But that doesn't mean they should be though. As sad as it is even Donald Trump and his pages must be protected from vandalism. ${\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}$ ^($Talk$) 21:49, 21 May 2024 UTC [refresh] — Stephen Nightingale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To add I was also the initial author of the new version of this article which has been edited since.${\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}$ ^($Talk$) 21:49, 21 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF explains why the existence of other articles that may warrant deletion is never a good reason to keep an article. I've now PROD'ed Ooog. I would suggest that the Roman Party should go to a second AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right here of course, in terms of the written rule - but I have noticed a massive inconsistency in wikipedia over this. I've had pieces deleted while far lesser pieces have been kept and vice versa. Articles like Wales_Green_Party I nominated for deletion and made a convincing case, only for it to be re-created and kept despite others nominating it for deletion again. It remains a dead page, kept for no apparent reason. It seems that if enough people bombard wiki with "Keep it! Keep it!" with no real substance, the page is ultimately kept, despite the rules above saying this doesn't. Personally I've always suggested keep and a review some months/weeks later, generally that allows time for citations to appear and if they do not, the page can be deleted without any real argument.Drowz0r (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion decisions and processes can be far from consistent, but practically it makes sense to debate each case on the basic principles. That's why WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are generally given little weight. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment. The argument regarding other non-notable parties has been addressed by Bondegezou with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Regarding the other half of the argument (that there are more candidates that have contested more elections), quantity of candidates fielded or elections contested is a poor indicator of notability for much the same reason raw vote count is a poor way of judging notability. We need independent, reliable, significant sources to demonstrate notability and I'm not satisfied there are any. (I'll expand on this below.) N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep On the basis that it is a registered political party with the UK Electoral Commission and has participated in a number of elections. If this is the case, then what possible reason ought this topic be deleted other than political? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.229.214 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — 151.231.229.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've struck out this comment as the fact the party exists is not an argument demonstrating the party is notable. N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep It appears we are trying to establish a higher threshold of notability for political parties than for other organisations. There are multiple independent sources here. Another way of looking at the question is "Would a reasonable observer expect to find out about this organisation by consulting an encyclopaedia?"Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Note for the closing admin: Rathfelder is the creator of the page Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog that was nominated for deletion due to discussion above.

Comment. There are many independent sources but few of them are reliable. Of the sources that are reliable, all of them feature trivial coverage of the subject. See my comment below. N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. I was pretty optimistic when reading through the article as it's better presented and more substantial than the last time we discussed it but despite it's promising appearance the subject still isn't notable. Take the list of sources. Remove the primary sources. Remove the sources that could be considered pure "Ankit Love self-promotion". Remove the less reliable sources from minor and local blogs and magazines. All remaining sources either simply record the fact the party exists and contests elections (Electoral Commission, London Elects) or mentions the party in passing as part of normal electoral coverage (BBC News, The Guardian, Newsweek). Having gone through this notability discussion several times previously, I'll keep it simple: If you want to show the party is notable find a single article in a major British newspaper that directly discusses the impact of the One Love Party as it's central subject and then maybe we can establish a claim to notability here. Such an article hasn't been presented because such an article doesn't exist because the party is not notable. They don't even meet general notability. The assertions (and for the most part, they are simply assertions) that the party is notable hold zero ground. Notorious, perhaps.

Are there inconsistencies in how and when non-notable articles are nominated for deletion on Wikipedia? Yes, of course there are, but the whole point of WP:ININ is that this isn't of any relevance to this discussion. The reason why this particular subject seems to be nominated for deletion more than other non-notable British parties is not "political" as an above editor suggests. It is because this is the FOURTH creation of an Ankit Love related article that was created in spite of the fact that the three previous deletion discussions (even though heavily contested and contrived) reached the snowball conclusion that neither Love nor his party merit an article. This is the FOURTH deletion discussion accordingly and I suspect we'll reach exactly the same conclusion as the three that came before it. The repeated recreation of Love-related articles in opposition to community consensus in the absence of arguments to change the consensus is annoying and disruptive. I would like to suggest salting the title. N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to all The common complaint from all, which seems valid, is the article simple did not contain enough media hits in reputable papers, outside of election curiosity for this piece to be notable. I had a sniff around and have added several new citations since this was nominated for deletion that meet the proposed criteria. They are not linked to elections and speak of either Ankit Love individually but talking about the common policies or feature Ankit and the party but are not linked to an election. I'd appreciate everyone who has voted a delete variation to check the citations again and then we can continue to discuss if it needs to meet anything further. Thanks in advance. Drowz0r (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for looking for more material, but I've just removed the two you added. One made no mention of the party, only of Mr Love, and it didn't say much about him. The other had one paragraph on the One Love Party only and is too trivial to warrant inclusion, I feel. Bondegezou (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking - I've added another but it's related to the up-coming by-election, so while notable doesn't really solve our "continual media outside of elections" issue. I did add some others prior to those two, which seem acceptable (well, they haven't been removed at least) Drowz0r (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• reluctant keep Looks like a little-known musician created a "Party" as a means of self-promotion. The problem I have an an editor who regularly works at AFD is that it seems to have worked, at least in the sense that it generated profiles in major media in Britain and India that go far beyond routine news coverage. I'm just seeing too much in-depth coverage to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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.