Trichome

thcscience_admin
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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Love Party[edit]

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)

The party simply isn't notable; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The party is not notable. Largely unrelated references that contribute nothing to demonstrating the notability of the party. Cyanhat (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a lot of sources giving this as an informal name for the National Alliance for Reconstruction, taken from its campaign slogan. Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. Turn into a redirect to National Alliance for Reconstruction. Bondegezou (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Most of the blog posts and passing mentions are connected to the London mayoral election in which Ankit Love ran dead last for the "One Love Party." As others have noted, the term "One Love Party" is an alternate name for the Trinidad and Tobago National Alliance for Reconstruction party, an organization unconnected to Mr. Love's organization. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Geoff | Who, me? 14:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. JbhTalk 16:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now I don't see who we are helping by deleting the article. It's a matter of record that the party stood in a fairly important election (and did badly) with a particular manifesto and candidate - why not summarise this in an article? It got some coverage in independent reliable sources (get west london, huck magazine, hackney gazette, official sites etc.) and due to the nature of the election being for a mayor this was always likely to be mostly about the candidate rather than detail about the party. The party hasn't had much chance to stand in any other elections since, maybe delete it in a year or two if the party doesn't do anything else in that time as then presumably we'd have notability only for a single event that could be summarised in the article about that event. I have no objection to this article being trimmed back for now, and the article about Ankit Love was obviously filled full of PR fluff that needed removal. N.B. The article was getting pretty decent pageviews around the time of the mayoral election, plenty higher than the Green Party for example, so the article seems to have been providing some kind of useful service. JMiall₰ 20:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: JMiall (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
    • Reply to User:JMiall's keep opinion. Wikipedia write articles about notable subjects and delete articles about non-notable subjects. To argue a non-notable article should be kept because it may do better in future is a fundamental misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. You mention the number of page views as greater than the Green Party during the mayoral election but that demonstrates exactly why we have a responsibility to delete the article. One Love is contesting the Tooting by-election but has an article like other notable parties where other non-notable parties do not. This places undue weight on One Love at the expense of other parties to the election which is likely why the page views fell the way they did during the mayoral campaign. If One Love is notable "in a year or two" then of course it can easily be remade but not until that time. N4 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The party is now contesting the Tooting parliamentary by-election on June 16, 2016.--Int Researcher (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) — Int Researcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment As a full disclosure, I am the editor who nominated Ankit Love for deletion. The arguments for Love's deletion nomination cannot be carried over as an argument for deleting the One Love Party article - it must be assessed for it's own merit independently of the other deletion discussion. That said I would like to draw your attention to the sockpuppetry comments made on that discussion as it is of relevance to this one. As for this AfD, I would come down on the side of...
  • Delete. Non-notable flash-in-the-pan. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ankit Love is the leader, treasurer, nominator and sole candidate of this party. It is clearly a vehicle to promote Ankit Love, not a serious party. If we exclude the unreliable sources (Twitter, oneloveparty.eu and ankitlove.com) and the sources which merely give election results, we are left with only a few sources, none of which offer in depth coverage of the party.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:43, 29 May 2016 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/One_Love_Party

Leave a Reply