Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymru Annibynnol

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cymru Annibynnol

[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)

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. This group became Cymru Rydd which was deleted through AfD. This article, if anything, is less appropriate for inclusion, as it is a festival of Citation Needed tags. No evidence of ORG or GNG, no evidence of importance prior to, during, or following election campaigns. No evidence of achievement. One citation proves existence. Usefulness is not a valid reason to retain an article. doktorb _words^deeds 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass the
WP:GNG. There are plenty of passing mentions in RS media sources and books, but nothing that adds up to significant coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per nom - not notable enough for its own article. Seagull123 Φ 11:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ProQuest has some 50 hits. Among those I checked there was only one which would count towards GNG, being brief coverage of the party's antics.[1] Not enough so far. Haukur (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2020 (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.