Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Labour Party (Bahamas)

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. No participation in 2 relists. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Labour Party (Bahamas) (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)

Minor party which contested one election in 1972 and received 0.5% of the vote. Fails WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The party held a seat in the House of Assembly (which it lost in the 1972 elections), and I think any party that held a seat in a national legislature has inherent notability. I've made a small expansion to the article. Cheers, Number 57 09:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, it may be the case that this was a rebranding of the Labour Party (this source describes the CLP as being "reconstituted"), in which case the two articles could be merged, although I'm not sure under which title. Number 57 12:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Contrary to what was said above, there is no criteria that awards a political party inherent notability; political parties fall under WP:NORG, which explicitly states "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools". Almost no sources seem to exist; party likely fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say there was any criteria that awards the party notability – it should be quite clear that I'm giving a personal view on the matter. Number 57 22:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 11 May 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.