Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independents for Frome

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. Concerns about article cleanup are outside the scope of this AfD. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independents for Frome

[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)

Organisation fails our ORG and GNG guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties and should not be used to host pencil sketches of political parties just because they exist, but rather because of what they have achieved outside merely being formed to fight elections, which is where I believe this article falls down. No evidence of importance, notability, or achievement outside those expected for a political party. The decision to focus on parish elections and phrases like "flatpack democracy" are notability red-flags for me. doktorb _words^deeds 06:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the two lengthy news articles separated by a number of years, in national newspapers (and already cited in the article). See also the study published in "Environmental Policy and Governance". Seriously, if we deleted all articles about political parties because they'd achieved nothing "outside those expected for a political party" we'd have no articles left. Sionk (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sionk. This is a highly-unusual non-partisan grouping, probably unique at town council level in English local government. Not only has it been the subject of two separate national newspaper articles (cited on the page), but it was the principal subject of a March 2021 academic study, Flatpack democracy: Power and politics at the boundaries of transition (open access). Note that in paragraph 4 the authors say "Frome's case is important as the key protagonists for sustainable transitions were a group of “independent” councillors who claimed to encourage inclusion and diversity". Clearly this is a notable organisation. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I would also note two further academic works, Alternative organization and neo-normative control: notes on a British town council a journal article by Emil Husted, and Planning for Transitions? A case study of Frome a PhD thesis from Amy Burnett. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-written the article with additional material and several new sources. Independents for Frome seems to have been, and continues to be, a quite influential group within English local politics. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested contributors to seek a re-evaluation after the expansion of this article: @Doktorbuk:, @Abdulhaseebatd:, @Sionk:, @Geschichte:, @RoanokeVirginia:, @Bungle: MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Michael. I do have serious issues with the opening paragraphs - uncited, "blog"-style in nature, and all that stuff about "flatback democracy" or whatever it is reads very strangely for what is a (very) minor political party. I can see you've done a lot of work, mind, and that is good. It's the lead which is still making me wrinkle my nose. doktorb _words^deeds 05:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead isn't "uncited" at all: every single statement in it is fully supported by an RS in the body of the article. You're evidently proud - according to your user page - to have purged so many non-notable parties from the enyclopedia, but I'm sure you are aware that none of your nose-wrinkling comments constitute any continuing basis for deletion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me pressing "delete". On a dozen+ occasions, the wider community and closing editors have agreed with me that minor political parties shouldn't have a freely hosted blog page disguised as a Wikipedia article. I've always tried to use this distinction - the Official Monster Raving Loonies have yet to win an election, but they have a cultural impact beyond the ballot box; grouplets like this have nothing comparable. Yes, I am proud that over the years I have helped in remove non-notable groups/organisations from Wikipedia, just as any editor should be proud in tidying up the project and removing advertising/spam etc. doktorb _words^deeds 10:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a win for the encyclopedia if your nomination results in a much-improved article which is kept once notability has been clearly established. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are a matter for clean-up, not a deletion rationale. As MichaelMaggs says, the lede is a summary of an article, so citations aren't necessary if the 'fact' is already cited in the body of the article. Clean-up is better discussed elsewhere, anyway. Sionk (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG per sources in the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No comment on the content but the subject is notable enough to have an article by passing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 16:35, 12 September 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.