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. A range of views with none particularly dominant. Results and coverage a week from now could lead to a prompt renomination, or make it clear that the subject is notable, but for closing this for now as no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CumbriaFirst[edit]

CumbriaFirst (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)

Non-notable political party Meatsgains^(talk) 02:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect A single person is not a party. Reywas92^Talk 04:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I can understand why this page has been nominated for deletion, but I have now improved the citations and added local election results (see CumbriaFirst) which lists candidates other than the leader. PinkPanda272 (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CumbriaFirst are an officially registered UK political party and are more than one person. every party in the global political system started with someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.249.9.71 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They dont appear to be particularly noteworthy looking at even local media coverage, no prejudice against recreation if Davies becomes an MP as it will make his party of some note but not at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a candidate was elected in the local elections, enough coverage exists, these are usually kept. Peter James (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a relevant list. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Lets decide on 13th December. Rathfelder (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILL - it's contested three elections, one of which its candidate won. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is more than the Roman Party ever did, and there was consensus to keep that article. Peter James (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is now into the third week of AfD discussion, and it would be useful if we could come to some form of consensus. I have tried to improve the article in question up to a standard comparable with similar pages (see Category:Locally based political parties in England), so I think it should be kept. I get some people feel it is just not notable enough, but it has District Council representation and as Peter James said above, other articles like this have been kept in the past.

Cheers, PinkPanda272 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per WP:MILL. The article and coverage do not appear to be particularly noteworthy. Agreed with comments above for deletion reasons - Jay (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A political party with a candidate who actually won an elected office would seem to be notable enough to be encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2019 (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.