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 no consensus. It sounds like this would fail POLITICIAN if this was at the founder’s name but as the party the policy is GNG and I’m not seeing a clear consensus on that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Love Party[edit]

One Love Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable minor political party. Most of the sources are local newspapers mentioning that Love stood in various by-elections, very little significant coverage. Even [1] is only a couple of paragraphs (and is mainly quoted from him) Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep with move to Ankit Love I was a "weak delete" on the previous AfD, that reached no consensus. Nowadays, I think Love and his party ultimately did manage to make enough fuss to attract enough RS coverage to meet WP:GNG standards. It seems to me more appropriate to have this as an Ankit Love article give the political party was a vanity project. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Ankit Love Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties and we should not promote articles as free Web space. This party had no impact, no notable results, hardly any coverage in reliable sources. A merge into the founder's article seems the right decision. doktorb _words^deeds 13:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ankit Love doesn't have an article, it's been deleted multiple times, and create-protected. His name just redirects to this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per User:Joseph2302. Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties and we should not promote articles as free Web space. This party had no impact, no notable results, hardly any coverage in reliable sources. doktorb _words^deeds 15:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well-sourced, passes general notability. Has been kept on two prior occasions, notability is permanent. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Boynamedsue Has been kept on two prior occasions- no it hasn't. It was deleted at the first AfD and recreated, and the second AfD had no consensus. And the founder's article has also been deleted multiple times. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: one delete and one no-consensus. But, looking at this again, I think Boynamedsue's point that this passes general notability holds, and that's what's important. There's just too much on Love and/or the party to ignore. I am thus striking my "weak" earlier and switching to a full "keep". Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dissapointed to read this. We really need a purge of these also rans, I don't understand your logic and I don't understand why notability guidelines are apparently irrelevant for political parties. doktorb _words^deeds 12:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I remain an inclusionist at heart, but WP:NOTPAPER, so why do we need a purge of these also-rans if we can write a sensible article about them? WP:GNG is the top notability guideline and Ankit Love and his pretend party managed to get a fair amount of RS coverage, in the UK and south Asia. Love continues to be active, more so in India (see [2] for an additional citation). I think we re-tool the article to be primarily about Ankit Love, with a section on the One Love Party, and we have something that is encyclopaedic. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, but I don't quite see the logic here. Why do we need to get rid of articles on parties which pass GNG? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced the party passes WP:GNG. Lots of the sources are about Love the person not the party (and article on him has been AFDed multiple times too, and create protected). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article has several national and international news feature references, in regards to London mayoral and high profile UK by-elections. If UK parties like Duma Polska, Peace Party (UK), and MP3 Party have articles with less news coverage, page views and attention in general, keeping the One Love page seems in balance of wiki project too. Worthwhile looking through this list of other defunct UK political parties. --Death Star Central (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'd delete those in a heartbeat. doktorb _words^deeds 05:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other stuff exists is not persuasive, although there's been the assertion that there's sources sufficient to meet the GNG. Relisting to enable discussion of those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To respond to the relisting comment, there are 44 citations given, but these vary from primary sources (the party itself and election paperwork), sources that are yellow at WP:RSP (Business Insider), local newspapers (e.g. Hackney Citizen), some deadlinks (Huck Magazine, Huffington Post) and passing mentions in election coverage. But there is some better coverage: there are pieces specifically about the party or Love himself in Vice [3], Outlook India [4], Gulf News [5], Dazed [6], Hindustan Times [7] and NDTV [8]. Those look like the best sources to me. They cover more than one election campaign, so I think the usual WP:NPOL/WP:1EVENT argument doesn't apply. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are the working links to Huck Magazine 1, and HuffPost 2, there is also Indian Express 9 and Hindi language Dainik Jagran 10 (most read daily newspaper in India) --Death Star Central (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've fixed the Huck link in the article. That new Huff Post link is still broken for me, however. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, this time should work, HuffPost 2, looks like there was a bug in wiki source editor when converting numbers in "insert link" button. --Death Star Central (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia isn't a gazetter of dead or unusual or short lived political parties. It made made zero impact on the people of the UK. There is no lasting impact from its existance, nothing of value, so how can it be notable. It just seems on the surface to be a vanity project for the individual that established it. The coverage is all WP:1E stuff. scope_creep^Talk 03:39, 28 February 2022 (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.