Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Democratic Party (United Kingdom)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Democratic Party (United Kingdom)

[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)

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties (as per WP:NOTDIR and others). Christian Democratic Party was a tiny, insignificant party that fails WP:GNG as it is not widely covered in multiple reliable sources. Citations are plentiful but only prove the party exists, not that the party has achieved anything notable, as required by guidelines. The mere fact of registration with the Electoral Commission is not evidence of notability. Usefulness is not a valid criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Article fails all reasonable tests on notability and achievement before, during and after participation in an election. doktorb _words^deeds 23:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started this article in 2005. I have no memory of why I thought it was notable then, but it doesn't seem to be now. I'd also dispute the claim that citations are plentiful - the bulk of the article is uncited and much of it seems dubious. Mibblepedia (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Delete - not many citations and definitely not enough to establish notability Balle010 (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not satisfy notability. Nika2020 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As an Officer of this party I find it highly offensive and discriminatory that the deletion of this page is even open to discussion, the notability will increase greatly in the coming weeks and should be left online.Josheeley (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Josheeley: I notice your editing on the article page and your comment here. I would just like to remind you about WP:COI. the policy Wikipedia has about conflict of interest while editing. You have a direct connection to the subject of the article, so of course you want it to stay, but adding lots of primary source websites and glowing reviews about how brilliant you are runs against our policies on notability, promotion, and neutrality. Check out our policies at WP:GNG and WP:NOTBLOG for two relevant issues here. Also you say that the party will have notability increasing in the coming weeks: that is against our policy WP:CRYSTALBALL. You may well become notable, but you need to prove it in the real world before Wikipedia can reflect that. Make your park beyond Wikipedia, and then there will be second- third- and countless-other sources we can use to WP:CITE that achievement. I hope this helps. doktorb _words^deeds 16:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Ralbegen (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable organisation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the party eventually becomes notable, then it warrants inclusion in the encyclopaedia; not before. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. If it becomes significantly notable in the future and meets WP:GNG then it can be recreated accordingly. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. It does not meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not here as a political platform for every registered political party. The part is just not independently notable. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite Josheeley's passionate appeal, I lean on delete. Not notable enough yet. - Harsh 19:57, 30 June 2020 (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.