Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Protection 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) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Protection Party[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. As per UK Electoral Commission (search for the party name here [1] the group was launched in 2006. They received, by their own admission, fewer than 1,000 votes in the four elections they contested in 2010. They are not a notable name in their field, as proven by Google searches. They are not at the centre of any high profile protest movements. They do not feature as a notable name in news media coverage of their apparent field. Non-notable groups fail Wikipedia guidelines on notability, not withstanding the absence of any formal Wikipedia policy on political parties. doktorb _words^deeds 19:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have argued that verifiable political parties should receive the strongest presumption of notability, as a matter of public interest. In any event I do think it would be undesirable to demand more than a minimum showing. Multiple reliable sources for the UK party can be found at GNews,[2] and I think that's enough for a keep.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. More than enough. The test should be this: In a few years time when I (a political scientist) am researching/reviewing elections in the early 21st century and I come across results showing that a party (in this case, the Animal Potection Party) stood for election and I know nothing about them, should I have to remain ignorant because reference sources (in this case, Wikipedia) have no mention of them? No one is suggesting that this group deserves a major article like the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or even UkIP, but this is not aspiring to that. Besides, Wikipedia is not paper - a small article is not a problem, especially given that sources are provided and others are available. Strong keep. Emeraude (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you suggesting Wikipedia is a search engine? doktorb _words^deeds 08:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: On the contrary. I'm saying its somewhere to look things up and get information. Encyclopaedia, I think they call it. Emeraude (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. There are sufficient sources to establish notability. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Four council candidates plus a bit of coverage in local news and indymedia is borderline. However, if we're going to keep this, we should give some weighting to what the sources covered this party for - namely, that one of their candidates served time for arson. That's WP:LUC for you. Chris Neville-Smith (talk)

Reply. Wrong. Not "(f)our council candidates" but candidates in the 2010 General Election. (Did you read the article?) Emeraude (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a point against my concern about lack of balance in the article, or are you pointing out technical inaccuracies with no bearing on a !vote for the sake of it. Because it looks like the second. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply pointing out that you were wrong to say A) it is four councillors and B) coverage only in local news and media, when the basic sources are the same as for any party standing in a general election (e.g. BBC results pages, electoral commission, official notice of candidates, etc) so far from borderline. As for the arson, I couldn't give a toss - this is an AfD discussion. If you think it belongs in the article, add it. Emeraude (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The aggressive tone you are using for people failing to back up your point of view in the strongest possible terms is not helping things. However, if you insist on pa full-on confrontation over this, I'm not changing to keep because i) simply standing a candidate for a parliamentary election (as opposed to having any kind of notability as a candidate) isn't that much more notable than council candidates - all it requires is a few more signatures and a bit more money; and ii) Every party of any standing in the UK demonstrates notability through daily news coverage, and routine coverage in official documents (and the reprints of results) is just incidental to that. Were it not for that stuff about the arson, there wouldn't have been any evidence at all that anyone was taking notice. Personally I think it would be better if we covered tiny parties in something like List of minor parties in the UK, so that the information about who the party is and what they did is available to anyone looking for it without it turning into a reprint of the party's website, but I won't using phrases such as "I couldn't give a toss" for anyone shown insufficient agreement for my point of view. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yaloe (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This probably won't affect the outcome, but User:Yaloe seems to be doing a string of indiscriminate keep !votes with no reason given at any point. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The guideline for politicians suggests that someone must hold a political office, rather than have just run for it. I think a similar standard can be applied here - the Animal Protection Party has not won any seats and does not seem to have had any significant coverage beyond election results. In addition, the guidelines for not-for-profit organisations suggests that an organisation is notable if its activities are on a national or international scale. In this case, the party has run for a few local seats in elections and has had not broadly national campaign, as far as I am aware. Thus, it does not seem to meet either of the most relevant guidelines. Having said that, evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources would make the above reasoning redundant. I am not convinced that this has been provided yet; however, if adequate coverage can be found, I will be willing to change my mind. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-reasoned, but do bear in mind that the guideline (and it is a guideline) for politicians refers to individuals, not organisations and is designed to prevent the creation of articles on anyone who has ever stood for election to anything, or even been considered for nomination. This is not the case here, the article is about the party and not the individuals. As for WP:NGO, also bear in mind that what you have referred to as "a few local seats" are actually seats in the national legislature, contested at the General Election, which is not quite the same as contesting some minor parish or town council election.Emeraude (talk)

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.