Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBTIQ Greens

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 redirect to Green Party of England and Wales. The redirect target and an merger of content is up to editorial consensus. But consensus here is not to have an article about this topic. Sandstein 18:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTIQ Greens[edit]

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

No evidence that this is an actual entity. All the refs simply show as an integral part of the Green Party and not even a splinter group,simply one component grouping. As written this fails WP:GNG . Maybe a merge back to the relevant parent article might be the appropriate solution. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge with the UK Green Party, and redirect - This is better suited as a sub-division of the UK Green Party rather than its own standalone article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave page as is - This group has the same standing within the Green Party of England and Wales as LGBT Labour has within Labour Party (UK) and LGBT+ Liberal Democrats has within Liberal Democrats, and LGBTory (United Kingdom) has within Conservative Party (UK), I would argue that if this page needs to be deleted, then so do the pages for the other Parties' LGBT+ groups. Aimeec110 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge with the UK Green Party, and redirect

Creating and editing a Wikipedia page for an institution of which you are Chair is a clear breach of WP:SPIP. The current article does not meet the criteria for balance, and constitutes self-promotion, please see: Wikipedia:NOTCV. Support Velella's point: integral parts of the party do not constitute a separate grouping that is notable, and therefore should be merged into the article. Rob304665 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small point of Information

If you do insist on merging it then I would advise against merging it with the UK Green Party as the UK Green Party hasn't existed since 1990. And as mentioned above, over Parties' LGBT+ Groups are allowed, so unless the other pages are deleted, I do not think Wikipedia should be making a Partisan decision. Aimeec110 (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I do not support the hounding of Aimeec110 who appears to be a new editor writing about a subject in which she has an interest. Any judgement about this article should be on its notability and nothing else. If it is partisan , then that can be fixed if the decision is to retain. @Rob304665: - as a brand new SPA, you seem to have great familiarity with Wikipedia rules and procedures. If you have an undeclared interest, it would be appropriate to declare it now. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob does have a point. The chair of the LGBTIQ Greens is Aimee Challenor, and the main editor of this article is Aimeec110. It does raise a few concerns. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and acknowledge that, but to persistently make the same point including adding a hidden comment in the article itself is pushing the limits unacceptably IMHO. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (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.