Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance for Local Living

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Local Living[edit]

[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)

This is apparently a political party whose role is limited to two local government areas. Theonly way an article could be produced on such a localized topic is by including excessive detail, which is what has been done here. This is not of nationwide or more general significance.

The references are almost entirely from the group itself or from local newspapers. The one that say BBC are worded in a way which makes the look national, but they are not. They're from BBC Dorset, the local edition or distribution. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, below the threshold. Local news interest only. Geschichte (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the few times I would disagree here. I would argue that municipal representation is enough to pass notability. Coverage is naturally going to be localized given that it is a local political party. Despite being a WP:OSE copout, there are several examples of municipal political parties passing muster (Projet Montreal, Surrey First, Burnaby Green Party) and several others that exist, but are woefully undersourced (which truthfully undercuts my argument, lol). In the end, I don't care either way, but I still think this passes notability due to representation. Bkissin (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The party doesn't meet the threshold of notability due to it being local. Plus, it only seems to have gotten local coverage. Although I don't feel like doing it, one could argue that the other local political party articles could probably be deleted for the same reason. I'd imagine they would have to be especially unique to garner enough non-local coverage to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a lot of references above to this article failing to reach "the threshhold" but no actual identification of what that threshold is supposed to be. Applying WP:ORG and WP:AUD we're left with BBC references to establish notability. I disagree with DGG as I think the BBC News references are clearly national news, albeit the local news section of it (the comparison is the the New York Times reporting on news in New York - the audience for that news extends far beyond New York). However the BBC mentions are not WP:SIGCOV since ALL is only briefly mentioned. As such WP:ORG is failed. I agree with Bkissin that local parties should generally be featured if possible, and I do not personally like WP:AUD as a rule (a Maltese newspaper is "national" but the London Evening Standard is "local"?), but it is not for us to simply disapply the rules. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the NYT reporting in NYC in the main paper, they used to have separate supplementary sections, for Long Island, and for other suburbs. The material in those supplements was not up to the same standards, and I have never used it on WP. I consider that to be the analogy. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Nominator - @DGG: Given that the article Poole People Party also appear to be a local-only party competing in the same area, do you believe that it should be put up for AfD as well? On the same matter, do you believe that the articles at Category:Locally based political parties in England should be reviewed for national notability and those that fail be put up in a group AfD? (It would range in quality between articles like Boston Bypass Independents and articles like Middlewich First) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, the easy parts: I would never include diverse organizations of the same type in a single AfD; in most such cases it turns out that some are more notable or at least better referenced than others.

Second, decisions at WP:AFD are erratic enough that it doesn't make sense to go by precedent, however desirable it might theoretically be. Forvery similararticles, there will typically be different results based on various extraneous factors, such as local knowledge, and the inclinations of those who appear. For successive AfDs of the same article, different results are both common and expected. When I came here. 14 years ago, it was obvious that almost anything could be deleted by renominating in sufficient times; although it is not the practice to renominate as rapidly as people did then, something similar can still happen, especially when there are a few people dedicated to removing an article, whether for good reasons or for prejudice, and the supporters are scattered.

And one very recent improvement is the recognition at Deletion Review that old AfDs of an article are not necessarily relevant to current standards. I don't think this has yet been formalized, but many admins will often not delete by G4 if the AfD is too far back.

But, re-reading the article and following the references and links, I've concluded that by my standards this party is notable, because it has actually succeeded in electing candidates in significant elections. Not being up-to-date with British local political organization, I tried in response to this afd to learn something about it, if only at the level of WP articles, and I see that I under-rated the current significance of the county and district councils.

I: cannot simply withdraw the AfD, because 2 other WPedians have !voted Delete. But I want to:

withdraw the delete recommendation implied by the nomination, and change my !vote to Keep. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I will say that your response surprised me a bit, but I can understand it. (I will say that this is an odd situation where a decently sourced article is up for AfD compared to others in the same category.) Given your comments, I am going to say that we should Keep the article as the only problem I really see is that there are sources that could be added to the article, but are not. Still, I was able to find five independent sources including the ones in the article that could be useable. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Hopefully these would be sufficient to satisfy the claims of no reliable sourcing. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GROUP. Just being a local political party or independent political movement is not inherently notable. Being a group, residents Group, area group (The Cynon Valley Party), political arm (Cross-Community Labour Alternative), political statement group or party (Official Monster Raving Loony Party), animal Politics, or any other special interest group that can be formed by registering before an election, still depends on the notability sourcing requirements. Notability: {{tq|the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and WP:V#Reliable sources and notability, If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The two BBC sources are not even about the subject but the "Dorset's nine councils to merge into two unitary authorities." Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria should also be considered. Extra comments: Independent groups that form can join other parties or groups to form a coalition or coalition club. Currently there is one "party" member elected in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council and four in the Dorset Council. Regardless, these are very local council seats from a local group. The can of worms would be that all forms of local entities, regional, county (parish), police jury, and other strictly encyclopedic non-notable, mainly primary sourced with possible a local reference or two, would be eligible for consideration under a relaxed criteria. It would not make sense to allow a local political faction an article without allowing the entity it represents to also have an article. Where is the encyclopedic value in either of those? Now multiply the number of countries (195 including two observer states) by the number of regional, sub-regional, state, and local areas and parties for a possible total of multiple thousands of poorly sourced articles. I realiaze other stuff is not supposed to be a good argument but it happens almost daily. It might look good for Wikipedia article number expansion but poorly sourced local parties and councils (juries) will be a degradation. It should not be forgotten that this usually includes the names of living people that is supposed to have a higher source requirement. Otr500 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 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.