Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderate Labour Party

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. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Labour Party

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

Non notable grouplet with failed candidature. No future notability. doktorb _words^deeds 18:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete coverage is routine about it being unsuccessful, fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 'future notability' is not a valid argument, notability isn't temporary. Party received 12,113 votes, which is a testament of notability. --Soman (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

number of votes is not a criterion, significant coverage in third party sources is. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's grounds for deletion don't appear very strong to me. Having un-notable failing candidates in itself does not seem like a good reason to delete to me. The lack of a more extensive case from the nominator suggests this to be more of a kite flying excercise than a geniune attempt to have an article deleted. I don't think Libstar's point about coverage in third party sources is that strong. What I think is important about this article is that it gives an opportunity to record an element of lack of satisfaction with the Labour party and the miners strike. I think the information should be retained in this format if it can not be incorporated into a more suitable article.Graemp (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV is part of the notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank LibStar for confirming they had located SIGCOV. Graemp (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the three sources provided are not in depth and merely confirm the party ran. Where is the indepth coverage of the party history? LibStar (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If my memories from nearly thirty years back are correct, this group got quite a lot of national press coverage during the British 1987 general election campaign. The fact that the Glasgow Herald, published several hundred miles away, printed at least two articles mentioning the party is partial if inconclusive evidence that my memories are correct - the reason for more not being online is almost certainly that freely available British online newspaper archives from the 1980s are fairly thin on the ground. Of course, when their candidates did not cause an upset in the general election, press interest dropped off completely, so while I think enough reliable sources probably do exist, coverage may have been far from persistent. PWilkinson (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Wikipedia can have large numbers of articles about comparative trivia of 1980s pop culture (not that I'm saying such articles should be deleted: they have their place) it can certainly have an article about something of at least equal importance within the capital-H history of the decade. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid vote, User:RobinCarmody doktorb _words^deeds 07:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but your "no future notability" seems bizarre to me. By those criteria we could delete all articles about the UK coal industry itself. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt was a real political party. It did enter several elections. It did gain suport and 12000 votes are 12000 people who knew about them not to mention that on each of those votes atleast as many heard of the party but still didnt vote for them.Stepojevac (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2014 (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.