Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Community Issues Party (4th 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 delete. The arguments presented here for keep mostly amount to it should be kept because previous AfDs found it notable. I'm not accepting that as a valid rationale, if it were then we would simply not allow renominations, at least on the same grounds. It is still necessary to present at this AfD sources that are supposed to meet GNG. Of course, I would not delete on the mere technicality that someone forgot to provide some links, but I am not seeing any sources either in the article or the previous debates that cannot reasonably be considered WP:ROUTINE or just mentions. Thus the delete camp has the more solid policy based argument, as well as being in the majority. The only other argument presented for keeping was by user Carrite who thought that this "is the sort of information that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia". Carrite, I find myself agreeing with you (and the opposite pertains, much that is provably "notable" has no business in an encyclopedia). Unfortunately, that argument has no basis in policy, WP:N is the cornerstone of our criteria for inclusion. SpinningSpark 19:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK Community Issues Party[edit]

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

A representative of the subject has request deletion of this article via OTRS (Ticket#2014112810014127). Their argument is that they did not give permission for their political party to be included in Wikipedia, and that the information was posted without their knowledge or consent. I am filing this claim at their request, and offer no opinion of my own on whether it should be deleted or not. Yunshui ^雲 _水 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AfD as GNG unless they are claiming a copyright violation. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are extremely weak, mostly primary links to databases, and there is very little evidence of 3rd party reliable sources. The only 3rd party reliable sources linked to here mention the party only in passing. Per the OTRS nomination (and I've seen the original email) the subject would like to be deleted with a fairly... interesting... set of legal claims which are not likely to be of any consequence in the real world, but which do suggest that this political party is UNlikely to achieve notability anytime soon. No notability today, little chance of notability tomorrow, says to me: delete. Just !voting as an ordinary community member here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and other policies on notability. doktorb _words^deeds 06:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD. Definitely seems that the party is gone for good, but it was there and was a gadfly at some point, enough to draw some non-trivial coverage in small-town media. Should note that I have absolutely no connection to anything involved in this article except that I happened upon it during its first AfD nomination and decided to trawl for more sources at that point. Avram (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to full Keep from weak, on reading the GetSurrey pieces again. I'm seeing little reason to re-nom after the 3rd AfD years ago that reached consensus, and I'm uncomfortable with the apparently charged context of this nomination. Avram (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this meets WP:ORG. It has the feel of a political party run out of a basement by three people. The vast majority of those refs are about what the party does, not about the party. We can't have an article cited almost exclusively to primary sources, and I couldn't find much else out there. It's not a good sign when the first GHits on something are Wikipedia pages (including templates!). If and when it actually does something noteworthy it should be easy to prove it is notable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A couple of interesting points first - despite any "legal claims" that hold about as much water as a broken glass, if a party in a politics is notable it's going to have a page. No permission has to be given for the party to be included in Wikipedia - it's public domain. Such a demand is hilarious and no wonder these individuals don't have much notariety. What do they want? To stay a secret until it's time to 'reveal the big plan"? With that said, as Jimbo Wales said, the sources are weak and don't really speak on the party itself. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 16:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I respect Wikipedia and what it stands for and what it has achieved. I also highly respect Jimmy Wales and I fully agree with his comment of 5 December 2014 about UK Community Issues “suggest that this political party is UNlikely to achieve notability anytime soon. No notability today, little chance of notability tomorrow, says to me: delete”

In another comment from a different person on 6th December 2014 “If and when it actually does something noteworthy it should be easy to prove it is notable” I fully agree delete.

Again another comment from a different person on 7th December 2014 “no wonder these individuals don't have much notariety. What do they want? To stay a secret until it's time to 'reveal the big plan" Weak delete. Again I agree with this, there is no big plan.

UK Community Issues is a minor organisation that was started by a small group of ordinary people who were victims of the NHS (National Health Service) due to the covering up and closed ranks when medical mistakes/errors were made. In the U.K. this covering up is so deep throughout the government departments to the Prime Minister.

Victims of the system can have their health damaged, lives destroyed, forced to live in poverty and may have a young family. They are unable to get justice to prove what happened to them. You lose your trust in the system and do not want to become a part of it.

This is not about wanting to be famous or to lie to the public to be elected. Politicians usually join large parties to be elected but do not necessarily represent the views of their constituents and will mostly tow the party line.

As a human being with a conscience, you have to look at the facts. If you join a well-established major political party in the U.K. with a large following, stand for office and get elected, and you are aware of the extent of covering-up with people living in poverty turning to food banks but turn a blind eye you then become part of the problem. At the same time, politicians claim privileges to live a better life than those they are supposed to be serving. If you have a strong view that Tony Blair should stand trial for war crimes then you are more likely to be isolated within those major political parties. I strongly believe the best way forward is not to become a part of the circle, who only think about what they say to get the next vote.

There are bigger international issues Wikipedia could concentrate on. I strongly believe that to delete all the information on UK Community Issues is the best way forward.

This is the 4th time that UK Community Issues has been nominated to be deleted. If Wikipedia takes notice of its followers and respect what their followers are saying then it should delete all the articles and information you hold about UK Community Issues on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not go into this process a 5th time. The message is clear: Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete.

As this is the 4th time, it should not be the matter of debate. This is not the case of copyrights and legal matters. The fact that there have been 4 nominations for UK Community Issues to be deleted is overwhelming. Just Delete!

Wwilberforce 14:18, 8 December 2014 (GMT) — Wwilberforce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Found notable at AfD in 2009; notability is not temporary. I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion of articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections since this is the sort of information that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I receieved the following message from Yunshui: "Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Community Issues Party (4th nomination). Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲水 08:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)".

I thought people on Wikipedia had the freedom to debate. However, this is not the case. It seems like Wikipedia restricts those who want to comment further on debates.

Wwilberforce 16:34, 12 December 2014 (GMT) — Wwilberforce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you would like to comment in this discussion - as in, comment on whether or not the article in question meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion - then you are welcome to do so. What you may not do is move other users' comments, demand to debate unrelated political issues instead, remove valid tags or edit war to retain your inappropriate demands. Such editing disrupts the process of discussion and makes it more difficult for the community to establish a consensus. As long as you are discussing the subject at hand - namely, whether or not this article should be included in Wikipedia - you may continue commenting here to your heart's content. Yunshui ^雲 _水 17:14, 12 December 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.