Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Radical Party (UK)

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The_Radical_Party_(UK)[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)

Fails WP:GNG. As per deletion of Patriotic Socialist Party a recently created political party is not automatically notable, and must surely wait for more than a single by-election to have notability proven. Article is tagged for single source violations and has few, if any, secondary source citations, against Wikipedia policy. doktorb _words^deeds 21:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article; the party has been around since 2015. It was active in contesting a seat in 2017 as well as the recent Lewisham by-election. It will likely contest more elections. The article was only created 14 June yet a deletion process had already been initiated on its day of creation. Wikipedia policy states that "articles should not be nominated...if the content is still being built or improved". The page is relevant and if deleted could cause other relevant minor political parties to lose representation on this public encyclopaedia due to the precedent set; the party are notable enough but I agree more sources and information is needed (though as stated previously the page is only one day old as of writing this comment). Greenleader 07:22, 15 June (UTC)

- Additionally, the "patriotic socialist party" mentioned had good reasons to be deleted; it didn't seem to contest elections, doesn't have a website or social media with hundreds of followers, hasn't been mentioned in articles and is not a relevent minor party. The radicals however do seem to have relevence as well as social media with 100s of followers and have contested elections and been mentioned in articles; they will likely pop up more and I believe it would be wrong to remove their wikipedia page - as of writing many more sources have been added. Greenleader 10:49 (UTC)

- - We do not decide notability based on social media followers. I've got hundreds of followers on Twitter, but that doesn't mean I get a Wikipedia article. Sources have been added: they are all either primary sources or passing references within routine election coverage. There is not a single secondary source that gets anywhere remotely near WP:SIGCOV. Bondegezou (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article; as stated by Greenleader, the party was founded in 2015 and stood a candidate in 2017, and a candidate in a 2018 by-election. I am currently working to find more inofrmation and references relating to the party that are not from the Party itself. Cdjp1 11:15, 15 June (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The party leader has stood in two elections, getting less than 1% of the vote on either occasion. The only reliable, secondary sources is election coverage listing his candidacies. There is no precedent that a party is notable just because it has stood a few times. Wikipedia is not here to give free advertising to vanity projects. Without secondary sources about the party or its leader, this fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New political party that has had no election victories, no notable members, and no WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant coverage or sources other than from the party itself. If really necessary, we can add a short note description in the relevant by-elections' candidates box outlining the party. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the threshold for notability of political parties is barely above existence, but I don't feel even that threshold is met. I cannot tell whether this is anything more than a corporate name for Patrick Gray, who doesn't appear to be notable either. All of the independent references are trivial and/or statistical. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:37, 18 June 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.