Deletion of Northern Independence Party

Comment: Thank you for the ping. I do believe that this passes , and I think  is helpful in determining that. I do not think  applies here, mainly because of the  coverage given, much more than a routine announcement. The coverage is primarily local, but the mention in the Independent helps in establishing national significance as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:THREE||WP:ROUTINE||WP:INDEPTH)

Comment: Already found five sources that help it pass GNG. Editors links to the party is pure conjecture. "Wishful thought" is a bit , isn't it? Nonsense nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: as it passes , the local newspapers this party received coverage in, such as the the ''Blackpool Gazette'', serve areas with large enough populations to be considered reliable in my view
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Still a delete - I don't know how someone could close this as delete, but it still should be deleted. This is a non-notable fake political party that still fails  and that has fallen out of the news cycle
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)

Comment: per  and . Apparently there's just a few YouTube and Twitter citations, which is a bad citation per ; and has a few coverage. When I checked per /P, there's some doubtful press like Vice, and The Independent. It also may fall under . The registration as a political party itself is not meeting notability criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:TWITTER||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: WP:PING|PINGing {{ping|Zoozaz1|p=,}} as they accepted this article from a draft through , and therefore may be interested in this discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for creation (WP:AFC)

Comment: after looking at the sources, this seems to fail  and  simultaneously, and seems largely promotional in nature
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: There's been a lot of discussion so far about the sources given and GNG, so I used :User:DannyS712/SATG|this tool to make the following table to evaluate the sources in the current version of the article. From this, I don't think these sources are good enough to demonstrate notability per  or . The few sources given that appear acceptable are from local newspapers, which makes me think this is a case of  and  - as these 'good' sources seem to be news articles about the formation of the party, (mainly in light of the Andy Burnham vs UK Government stand-off over tier 3 funding etc). @{{no ping|Ahmetlii}} above raised the issue of  which I agree with - this ''may'' become a more notable political party, however, it's too soon to say if it will or not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ROUTINE||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS. Such new endeavors/ventures are may get some coverage, which is inherently trivial until the organization achieves something more tangible. I'm sure there are many cases of frivolous secessionism, it certainly has been in Norway as well, i.e. both Western Norway and Northern Norway which gained some news coverage, but |nothing lasting
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT)