Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Community Issues Party (2nd nomination)

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. The main problem with making a case for deletion for this article on the basis of lack of notability seems to be that so many sources have covered it, and that there is no consensus for whether or not political parties at national-level elections are inherantly notable. At any rate, the deletion policy advises us to err on the side of keep if deletion consensus is not clear; decision accordingly. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Community Issues Party[edit]

I imagine some people might look at the article, and be surprised that I have nominated it for deletion when it is so well sourced. The reason why I have nominated it, is because I have found not found multiple, reliable, and independent sources that demonstrate significant coverage of the party, including sources listed on the article. Wikipedia:Notability states that the subject of an article should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article was nominated for deletion before. However, despite the creator of the article endorsing the nomination for deletion, the result was "no consensus". This was because the nominator withdrew his nom, after another user had added a lot of sourced information. The nom said of his decision to withdraw "Avram (the user who added sourced info) has been able to find numerous sources that, although individually do not offer significant coverge, together suggest that UK Community Issues Party is notable enough for Wikipedia." I do not agree the sources added allow the article to meet WP:N, as I have not found multiple, reliable, and independent sources that offer significant coverage, an opinion also suggested by the closer of the original AFD when s/he said "I am not convinced that everybody will deem the party notable based on a few news stories, but there is certainly not a sufficient consensus for deletion at this time". The party itself appears to be a very minor one, only gaining 502 votes total when running in three British constituencies back in 2005, which appears to be its best ever result. BlueVine (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —BlueVine (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —BlueVine (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since they actually ran candidates in the UK general election, they are notable, regardless of size. DGG (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment to DGG- to stand in the elections only costs a couple of hundred pounds- anyone could invent their own party, pay the deposit, get ten signatures from their mum, sister etc and stand. This group aren't notable at all. [1] Sticky Parkin 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Sticky Parkin, DGG. It is relatively easy to stand a party for a general election in the United Kingdom. Also, I do not know of any policy/guideline on Wikipedia that states that a party automatically receives enough notability for a Wikipedia article of its own if it runs for a general election in the UK (hope that didn't come across as patronizing, wasn't my intention). BlueVine (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a prank or hoax. --Soman (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the article isn't a prank or a hoax. The party does clearly exist. However, I believe the article should be deleted because WP:N states that the subject of an article should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and I can find no evidence this party has met WP:N. BlueVine (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Standing in an election does not make the party notable. Having received press coverage would have done, but all the coverage I see is either from the Electoral Commission (i.e., an inclusive source that will give information on every party standing) or is not really about the party at all, but the activities of its founder. At this point, I'd say the founder is more likely to be notable than the party, but even then the article would be running the risk of violating WP:ONEEVENT. JulesH (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I continue to disagree. This is one of the things we should give comprehensive coverage to . Not necessarily any party officially recognized, or any write-in candidate, but any party that runs candidates that get on the official ballot, no matter how small. People will see the name any want information, and we're the place. Doing otherwise is shirking our responsibilities as an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I can see where you are coming from, DGG, but WP:N does state that the subject of an article should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Exceptions can be made to WP:N, but I do not think a party that gained only 502 votes total for three constituencies warrants such an exception. "Not necessarily any party officially recognized, or any write-in candidate, but any party that runs candidates that get on the official ballot, no matter how small." I believe that what you said then suggested that it is hard for a party in The United Kingdom to get onto the official general election ballot (hard enough for a party that makes it to be notable). I must stress again that it is not. All you need to do is create a party, register it, and you're open for the general election ballot. Also, if a person wants to gain more information about the party, they can go the party's website. I do not think it is "shirking our responsibilities as an encyclopedia" if this article is deleted. BlueVine (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is at most a fringe political party. The three candidates appear to be standing as serious (as opposed to joke) candidates. However, I think that we generally consider candidates who do not win elections as NN. Furthermore, we do not normally have bio-articles on those who win elections to councils. No notability is established. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- we are not considering the individual candidates--we are considering the party; that their candidates are non-notable does not mean that the party is. DGG (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree with your last post, DGG. According to WP:N, though, this party isn't notable. BlueVine (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment If I were a student and invented a party a few years ago when it still cost about £50, and all the students were doing it as they could easily get ten signatures because they lived in the university halls of residence, and I stood for my "students for self-abuse" party, would that be worth an article then? They had to up the amount of the fee required to stand because that's what was happening. Sticky Parkin 00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I said in the last AfD, there are no reliable independent secondary sources offering non-trivial coverage, so this should go. I hold that political parties are generally notable, but if as in this case there is no serious coverage beyond election results, letters to newspapers from candidates and self-published material, the party's impact is clearly minimal, and we are not going to be able to write a useful and properly referenced article on it. Warofdreams talk 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it stands provides encyclopedic, well-sourced information on a party that has never really amounted to an awful lot, but it was covered in the local media ([2] among others), which certainly sets it aside from pure vanity parties. I understand that unilaterally including parties that stood for the general election is silly-- but this is something more than someone who gathered 10 signatures and 50 pounds. This party has had occasional media coverage since before its 2004 founding, and its recent absence from the polls is due to a boycott (of course, I don't really believe they would have had much to show for their efforts if they had campaigned). This is a thorn in the side of area politics that we have managed to depict in a reliable and well-sourced way. Avram (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the article is well-sourced, and that it does provide encyclopedic, and reliable information. I do not believe the content of the article is at fault, and I think Avram did great work. I question the validity of the article itself. I apologize for being repetitive; WP:N states the subject of an article should have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The link provided by Avram above demonstrates just one reliable, secondary source that gives significant coverage of the party, and WP:N states multiple should be found. The party is definitely more than "someone who gathered 10 signatures and 50 pounds". Unfortunately, as per WP:N, I do not believe it is more enough to warrant an article. BlueVine (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe there is enough coverage in the reliable sources to establish notability. The coverage in this article - [3] is certainly significant, and combined with the coverage here and here to my mind is sufficient for notability. There is enough coverage anyway for us to write a reasonable length article, fully verfiable and NPOV, which is the purpose of notability imo, rather than just counting sources or deciding the length of the coverage in particular articles. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first source highlighed by Davewild shows significant coverage. The last two highlighted don't focus much on the party, and certainly don't offer significant coverage. Multiple reliable, independent, sources giving significant coverage are needed per WP:Notability. I only count one so far. I would love to keep this article, it is well-written, but it doesn't meet WP:N.Terrakyte (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the notability test, given that only one of the references provided gives them more than a trivial level of coverage. Not all political parties are notable; far from it, and this one is a very minor one that never achieved even the lowest level of success. Terraxos (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (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.