Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Constitution Party

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=English Constitution Party}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=English Constitution Party}})

Wikipedia is not a repository of every single political party. No established notability. No established independent coverage beyond describing the party as existing, such as election victories or notable results. No notable personalities or figures involved. No notable or established third party coverage. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of every political party registered to fight elections. doktorb _words^deeds 01:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. doktorb _words^deeds 01:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable British political party. Doubt they have ever won a seat in the House of Parliament. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Independent sourcing is very poor on this one. The sources already in the article are fairly short on information, with there seeming to be little information to be had outwith listings on ballot forms and one person. They're also the same sources that I turned up when I looked, so this seems to have the most sourcing that it can get at the moment, which is borderline. The non-independent sourcing is rubbish, and if unreliable Twitter posts are the only way that anything of significance is purportedly known (It's Twitter. It could be a total fabrication.) about this organization, which appears to be the case, then this is currently on the delete side of the borderline. Uncle G (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable party. Has no elected representation at any level and as far as I'm aware has never had any elected representation what-so-ever. There is also insufficient reliable third-party coverage of the party to give them notability or write up any sort of decent Wikipedia page on them. Very few third-party sources talk about it in any sort of depth. In most cases they only get a passing mention. Helper201 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete{{snd}}No in-depth coverage by reliable sources provided or found. Yue🌙 07:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - A lot of people will be wanting to know their stances given the upcoming Runcorn by-election in which they are standing. We ought to stop being so anal about page notability. MCMax05 (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2025 13:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :*Reply Notability guidelines are rather tough for a reason, Wikipedia isn't a depository of each and every group to fight elections; it probably falls foul of WP: CRYSTAL to predict that voters will want to research this party ahead of the election (do we even know how many voters use Wikipedia?). doktorb _words^deeds 02:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.