Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English Radical Alliance

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. The keep side have made appeals to inclusion beyond existing guidelines - which is entirely valid - but those appeals are contrary to the clear consensus here. Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Radical Alliance

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

Contested PROD; was proposed for deletion by me on the grounds Non-notable: no mainstream coverage (BBC, any national newspaper, etc.) For me, this concern has not been met, and, as such, the argument fails WP:V, from which there is no coming back, however nice the article.

Additionally, I would like to point out the (rather long) rebuttal of this proposed deletion by Modgardener on the article talkpage. It is only fair that I do so, in case s/he does not comment here. Whilst I sympathise with the points made, as far as I can tell me have some sort of alphabet soup link for each paragraph: WP:EXISTS, WP:FUTURE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to name but three. I agree with the contester that the article is reasonably neutral, that is not the concern here; also, I wish Wikipedia were a good way to promote a new form of radical political party, but it is not. We are here to report on existing, notable political parties after they have become "famous". And I would take that last paragraph as an insult, but I was laughing too much. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage and per the article: "The English Radical Alliance has not contested any elections since being formed in July 2009." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lowest of all possible bars for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. This is the stuff of which encyclopedias are made. I am in favor of per se notability for political parties (a la major roads or towns or secondary schools), assuming that their existence is confirmed. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.
Keep - It is an officially registered political party. A quick glance at their website shows that it is not just a couple of mates, but is a bona fide organisation. Just because there are no based sources, does not make in non-notable. There is a world outside Google! Putney Bridge (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as far as the General Notability Guideline is concerned, no based sources is precisely what makes an organisation non-notable. By all means present sources that Google isn't picking up, but if it's just a few letters published in local papers that's nowhere near enough. Just because an organisation exists doesn't make it notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say no Internet based sources. I have no specific interest in this article, I just wanted to make my world outside Google point. Putney Bridge (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, don't agree we should treat registered political parties any differently. Elsewhere on wikipedia, we do not allow people to circumvent the General Notability Guideline by simply creating a bit of publicity about yourself. That is why we disregard press releases, any publicity about yourself which you paid to have created, and posts from from mates on open internet forums. To register as a political party you only need to pay £150 and list the signature of the party's major officers, which doesn't prove anything better than publicising yourself with money and your mates. We should consider notability of political parties the same as any other organisation - on substantial independent third-party coverage in reliable sources. Unless someone can show me coverage than GNews misses (as there was zero coverage there), this party is completely non-notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for complete lack of significant coverage. A political party that has not actually accomplished any political change yet has not yet achieved the level of notability required, and if they disband next year having accomplished nothing, history will not remember them. (Remember, notability is not temporary.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the party runs for election it will probably get a fair amount of coverage. Until then, it doesn't. Mere registration of a political interest group as a "party" does not make it notable unless it actually does something. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete one gnews hit [1]. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2010 (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.