Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK European Union 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 keep. Sandstein 19:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK European Union 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)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Little to no notable sources. No notable political impact. No electoral results. No notable persons involved. Any political party can register for £150 and this party has nothing else beyond appearing on a ballot paper doktorb _words^deeds 15:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Theoretically, this could change if they succeed in getting MEPs elected to the European Parliament when the results are announced on Sunday night, but that seems highly unlikely based on the exit polls. SpinningSpark 09:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the SIGCOV in the Evening Standard and The New European pushes the party over the GNG hump. schetm (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - received 0.2% of national vote share - around 35,000 people voted for them [1]. Queeninbriefs (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which corresponds to 18th place and no seats, even under proportional representation. SpinningSpark 12:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per schetm, the party has received coverage from prominent news sources. Greenleader(2) (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Election results now available. An encyclopaedia needs to cover obscure facts
Week keep Even appearing on the ballot in a significant number of seats is some sort of claim to notability. PatGallacher (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as others above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Queeninbriefs (talk) with Reliable sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject distinctly fails WP:ORG. I see Keep suggestions that openly violate WP:ITEXISTS ("it's on the ballot!") and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (Wikipedia must include "obscure facts"?!) but these do not hold water. The subject party, which has been created speficically for the 2019 election, has been mentioned only twice in reliable media before the election, and precisely zero times afterwards. That is certainly not significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Emphasis added. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources? schetm (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2019 (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.