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. Star Mississippi 13:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UK parliamentary caucus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a poorly written page with no basis in reality Trivran (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from recent edits, I have been overhauling the page, mostly in format. Going forward I am gonna do research and try to work out what caucuses still exist and how large they are. It is poorly written as its an irrelevant page which only yesterday I have begun to transform. Let me work on it a bit. Pathfinder2023 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no caucuses exist because this isn't america hope this helps Trivran (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy oppose deletion- no policy basis for proposal. AfD is not the correct place for discussing problems with article titles. I would support a move to UK parliamentary factions or UK parliamentary groups, as RS tend to use those terms more than the word "caucus", but again this is not the right place for discussing that. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the use of Groups instead of caucuses. LFI and Christians on the Left aren't factions but groups in parliament. Pathfinder2023 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's grounds for a speedy keep or a procedural close here. As far as I can tell it doesn't meet any of the criteria CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 09:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SKCRIT number 1- nominator gave no policy-based grounds for deletion (neither being poorly written or poorly titled are listed at WP:DEL-REASON), possibly also WP:SKCRIT 2b Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:OR This article has been created and updated by editors with no idea how the UK Parliament works. The terms "parliamentary caucus" and "parliamentary groups" simply aren't used in the UK. Whilst the Parliamentary authorities recognise parties, they do not recognise any of the "groups" listed under each party in the article. Most of these are just informal political groups/associations of MPs and non-MPs with similar political views. And an MP may be affiliated/associated to more than one "group". Obi2canibe (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • These groups are indeed informal, but that doesn't mean they don't exist (or have some influence); and such groups are frequently described by parliamentary insiders as "caucuses". See e.g. [1] or [2]. 78.33.29.98 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may exist but that does not mean they are "parliamentary caucuses". The article, created and edited by Americans with no knowledge of UK politics, is trying to make out these groups have official status and that are in some way recognised by Parliament - they do not and they are not. They are just hotch-potch groups created by political hacks to group together politician with similar political views.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: If we have articles about the various groups within a party then it seems entirely reasonable to have them also in a list. The lead should be expanded though to make clear that mps can be in more than 1 or 0 groups and that these groups are informal. It is unclear to me whether this article would include the notable All-party parliamentary groups (parliament) or if that would be a separtate article. I would not include the non-notable ones (most in this list), this list could be an external link though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolluik (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to List of UK parliamentary groups - plainly notable, meets NLIST. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 01:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Terrible deletion rationale provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR. Things like the "friends of 'x'" are not factions or caucuses but working groups. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry Liz, the deletion rationale is rude but it's not far wrong. As it stands, this is WP:OR, and I don't see much of a direction for it to go otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2025 (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.