Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Great Britain 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Great Britain Party

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

Defunct organisation which has no lasting notability or cultural significance, no evidence of electoral success, no evidence of credible third party sources, no role in any political debate that I can find, and certainly nothing at or since the general election in 2010. Nothing to indicate importance, and no reason to have page on Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 09:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being defunct is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Emeraude, as the coverage (so called) shows that the party achieved nothing of anything important, your point is invalid. doktorb _words^deeds 17:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire - the general notability guideline, which I have quoted in full, make no mention of achievement. Emeraude (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 20:04, 30 November 2014 (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.