Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwlad - The Welsh Independence 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwlad - The Welsh Independence Party

[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)

Article was previously redirected after a (more or less non-participated) AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwlad Gwlad)

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. Although the article has citations, it does not prove notability, only that the party exists. The community has recently agreed to delete Freedom Alliance (UK) on the basis that a party taking part in upcoming elections is not necessarily or automatically notable, and I believe that this principle should also be applied here. With Senedd elections taking place next week, the results should provide evidence of notability or political importance or other measures to decide whether this article should be re-created for a third time. I don't believe it should. doktorb _words^deeds 09:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party has received coverage in sources such as BBC.com (an article specifically about this party, and already cited in the article) and WalesOnline (also specifically about this party but not cited in this article). There is a major election they are standing in which will take place on May 6, before this AfD is set to close. Just being a political party is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but passing the general notability guideline usually is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While i agree with Metropolitan90 that this party may be notable, at the moment it is not noteworthy. Should they have notable results in the elections tomorrow, then it wouldn't be too difficult to make a new article about them, and as such for now I am in favour of deletion. Typhlosionator (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party has received coverage in many sources and won a complaint against the bbc for unfair coverage. They are fielding more candidates than the “greens” who regularly get coverage. They have sitting elected members (Sian Caiach) and are notable for being the only pro independence party for Wales explicitly having independence as its main goal. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 6 May 2021‎
- @Geraintdjones: you say they won a complaint against the bbc for unfair coverage—can you give a couple of sources for this? I can't see anything in the article on this subject. — Bilorv (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep They're standing for the Welsh Senedd elections, clearly big enough to give that a big push: BBC News Abcmaxx (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC news article about the party Abcmaxx (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's been enough in depth 3rd party coverage to cover WP:GNG at least. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have enough media coverage, and they ran in fourteen constituencies for the Senedd Elections. Castilruz (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I applaud many of Doktorbuk's party AfDs, but I think Gwlad have notched up enough in-depth RS coverage to pass WP:GNG/WP:NPOL. That said, the article needs work to reflect that. Bondegezou (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2021 (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.