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. Borderline between "keep" and "no consensus", in my opinion just about "keep", but either way we keep the article. What is clear is that there is not going to be a consensus to delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. There are two refs, one from The Guardian with a quote from Nigel Farage saying, "There is huge demand for a party that’s got real clarity on this issue." and "If the government goes back on its word... I will re-enter the fray." He is not this party's leader. The other ref is written by Catherine Blaiklock, the woman who set up the party saying she wishes Farage to be leader of the Brexit Party. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:TOOSOON. I don't even know if the party in question has been registered with the Elections office. Bkissin (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Nigel Farage#Resignation of UKIP membership. WP:CRYSTAL: This article can be recreated if and when it is actually founded and receives significant coverage. In addition, many sources refer to the proposed party as a "pro-Brexit party", name undetermined. Farage was quoted as saying, “So let’s see. I mean there is an application that has gone in for a new party called the Brexit Party, which strikes me as quite a good name, but we are in the hands of the Electoral Commission.” buidhe 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When I was reviewing this article my finger was reaching for the AfD button, but I held off as there was some decent media coverage (Telegraph, Guardian, Irish Independent), lower-grade media coverage (Sun, Daily Mail, Express). There was no coverage on the BBC, Financial Times, Times or UK Independent. Having gone through this article again, and edited it to clarify things, it is clear that without Farage, by Blaiklock's own admission, the party will not progress. Farage, to date, has done nothing outside of publically supporting it. If Farage does not join, the party will likely fail and this article would ideally be merged/redirected to a Catherine Blaiklock WP article, however she does not have one; it may deserve one sentance in the Farage WP article (but only one). I think we should let this AfD run for a few weeks as things are happening fast now, and we will know the answer shortly. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that The UK Independent has now recognized their existence in an editorial; have updated reference in the article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a worrying pro-Left bias emerging on Wikipedia which unless challenged will continue to undermine the neutrality and credibility of the site. This bias was blatantly exhibited when the page on Paul Joseph Watson was actually blocked from being created for several years. I am worried that a conspiracy is emerging among Left-leaning wiki editors/admins who will seek to block or (administratively frustrate) this page as well, if not right now, sometime soon. In the interests of the reputation of this site as being fair and neutral we should resist that and actively demonstrate neutrality whether or not we have issues with Mr. Farage etc. I have had to remove two examples of vandalism where the woman setting this party up had her name mis-spelled to include the word "cock" - more than a coincidence. I think a new Brexit Party is notable because of the widespread media coverage it has received. To delete this page now only to then re-create it in a few days (and then have that whole tedious debate about starting a page that has just been deleted and the whole process) after it is almost inevitably approved by the electoral commission would be unnecessary and exhibit the worrying bias against the political right which undermines this unique website's credibility on political neutrality. Our reputation as being neutral is desperately important and Left-leaning editors must resist the urge to undermine the neutrality of the site. As the user (Britishfinance) has rightly said, this new party and Nigel Farage's stated involvement has received serious media coverage in a number of mainstream newspapers. I therefore think it should be kept and re-named (and content updated) if need be when the electoral commission officially confirms the party and its name. If the party disappears or it is not approved by the commission then delete. Surely we can wait a month or two? Aetheling1125 (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is I who spelt her name incorrectly but it is a coincidence. My edits on this article were made to support the case for at least holding this article in place for the moment. They are not vandalism, and at least in relation to this article, there is no conspiracy; just a desire to chronicle the facts (notwithstanding poor spelling). all the best. Britishfinance (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aetheling1125 It is also worth noting that the campaign group Britain for Europe was deleted despite having 2 significant mentions in the Financial Times "Britain’s Europhiles splinter into dozens of grassroots movements" and "‘Remain’ core insists Brexit fight is not yet lost", WP:AfD/Britain for Europe and there was this tussle as well WP:AfD/European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom). If you want examples of vandalism then the edit history of People's Vote will give it to you. As for your comment that To delete this page now only to then re-create it in a few days (and then have that whole tedious debate about starting a page that has just been deleted and the whole process) after it is almost inevitably approved by the electoral commission would be unnecessary and exhibit the worrying bias against the political right which undermines this unique website's credibility on political neutrality. It doesn't necessarily follow that approval by the electoral commission = notability and Farage expressing support for the idea is WP:INHERIT, if Farage does become leader then it might be different but right now it is WP:TOOSOON. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that registration with the Electoral Commission is certainly not enough for notability on Wikipedia. Any two people with £150 to spare can register a party. Approval just means that you have filled in the form correctly and that your name and emblem are not obscene and not too similar to another registered party's. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do agree it has received coverage recently. It is not entirely clear though if that is the party receiving coverage, or rather the people around it and the party is mentioned in the context. I would argue that without the prominent ever-present individual, the party would not get covered. IMO this is a case of inheritance of notability, which is not sufficient. I agree, this is a case of TOOSOON until at least the party is founded. Wikipedia is not a recordkeeper of all things that come up once in a while. The current coverage also seems very much related to "recentism". I'd like to use the WP:10YT. If the party does not get approved, no one will remember even half a year down the line, depending on how things shape up. Maybe at least move to Draft until then... pseudonymJake Brockmantalk 12:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Comment changing to neutral as the party has been approved and there is more coverage now. I remain sceptical as a lot of the coverage seems primarily about Farage in connection with the party as opposed to being about the party itself. My points about recentism and 10YT remain. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk 17:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say we should keep this page until May 2019. if it doesn't get any more publicity then get rid of it. but for now it should be kept it is getting lots of news, plus its a counter weight to the new eu Renew Party. KingTintin (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Wikipedia need to provide a counter weight to the new eu Renew Party? Wikipedia provides info on what is not what ought to be. Isn't UKIP the counter weight to Renew in any case? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The near-equivalent of the Renew Party was also created as a wikipedia page long before its registration with the Electoral Commission was approved. It also doesn't receive nearly one minute of coverage per week. Wikipedia is here to provide information - they are both in existence, they are both entities, they are both serious parties (nobody raises one million without being serious) and they are covered by mainstream sources. Wikipedia has done its job of providing information - conveying that they exist. Deleting this article without deleting the other, is nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Nigel Farage has joined the party and becomes a "Brexit Party" MEP (rather than independent) in the EU Parliament then the article would come more relevant. I would leave it a week or two before deleting the article to see if this happens or not. C. 22468 Talk to me 01:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've got a reputation for wanting to delete non notable political parties. At the moment, this party is not on the Register of Political Parties, hasn't contested an election, hasn't done anything notable other than publish press releases. doktorbwordsdeeds 05:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am singularly unimpressed with the level of discussion centered on WP:PAG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Clearly good refs. As it stands now Wikipedia obviously has established some kind of consensus over UK partys that should apply to this one as well. Clearly a real and soon to be a factor in UK politics.BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCORP. While the party may go on to be notable, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAlBALL and all we can assess is the current situation, which is no different to the creation of various companies that are considered non-notable despite significant coverage because that coverage only covered the formation of the company or the release of a product. -- NoCOBOL(talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Brexit Party has received significant news attention since the nomination for deletion and has been registered with the electoral commission now. Lancashire2789 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It had just received official recognition from the Electoral Commission and has a large number of RS supporting this. I do agree with the person at the top, that if this were deleted, it would only confirm a left wing bias on Wikipedia. The Royal C (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, anyone can register with the Electoral Commission if they have have £150 to spare and are capable of filling in a form correctly and choosing an acceptable name and emblem. To point that out isn't any sort of bias. And even if there was bias why would it be left wing? I'm old enough to remember the 1983 general election where Michael Foot's Labour Party was pilloried in the press as being dangerously left wing because it stood on a platform of leaving the EU (or EC, or whatever it was called then). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant press coverage sufficient to meet the general notability and verifiability guidelines. -- The Anome (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Things are moving fast. Last week may have been 'too soon', but the party is notable now. --Wavehunter (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly. A week ago, the notability of this topic was marginal at best. The news coverage of the last couple of days, and the fact that the party has actually been registered, has changed the matter completely. -- The Anome (talk) 20:24, 8 February 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.