- 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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Animal Protection Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has been discussed for deletion before. Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties. Notability is barely touched upon. No notable press coverage, no notable elections, nothing important enough to justify an article. Fails all Wikipedia policies on notability. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nothing has changed since the nominator twice previously unsuccessfully nominated this article for deletion as part of his continuing campaign to delete all minor parties from Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's somewhat of an elision of the facts to state "Has been discussed for deletion before" without mentioning that it was kept in 2012 and 2013 or that this is the 3rd nomination of this article by the same editor. What has changed with regard to both the earlier consensuses for keep? Cut and paste nomination gives little indication of appropriate BEFORE. Bartle and Allen refer to the effect of the Animal Protection Party on Evan Harris' 176 vote loss in 2010, when the APP candidate got 142 votes.[1] Discussed by veterinary industry news source.[2] Prison time of candidate.[3]
- Courtesy pings to other previous AfD participants @Soman, Arxiloxos, SupernovaExplosion, Chris Neville-Smith, Yaloe, ItsZippy, and WJ94:. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems like a well supported article. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Since 2013 notability standards have changed. Organizations are now subject to the somewhat more strict WP:NORG due to the propensity of spam. Arguing that "this was kept in 2013, so it should be kept now" is a non starter. Agree with the nom here. Chess (talk) (please use
((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the previous contributions here, this is not an argument; a general assertion without an application to the specific reveals little, AfD is always case by case. This was the state of WP:ORG at the time the 2nd nomination was closed as keep (ie 21 July 2013); how is the difference between ORG then and now relevant as applied here? Answering that would be an appropriate contribution. We have press coverage, we have a reference to an effect in a notable election loss (Evan Harris), we have a party presenting candidates in multiple electorates. Delete !votes need to refute the arguments made (including the weight of two previous consensuses for keep). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So notability is preserved in aspic for ever more? This party achieved barely any national, important, relevant coverage at the time and have had no important, impactful, notable coverage since. Evan Harris was not a household name back then and certainly isn't today. They are not, if they ever were, important or notable enough for a Wikipedia article. We accept lack of notability for boybands, PR firms, apps, and business people. We should accept the same for political parties. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD isn't "case by case"; you've decided to disregard WP:CONLEVEL by arguing that this should be kept based on some idea that political parties have an SNG. WP:NORG had a significant rewrite of sourcing requirements years ago in 2018. [1] This was because organizations kept flooding articles with bad sourcing. The Oxford Mail covers a candidate, WP:INHERITORG makes it clear the parent organization doesn't inherit notability because a member got press coverage. WP:ORGIND makes it clear that "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability" and that's because you have fellow travellers writing these kinds of articles. The Vet Times source was written by Andrew Knight, a spokesperson for the "Animals Count" party, another "animal rights" microparty. Colour me surprised that it isn't a super good source. Chess (talk) (please use
((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 02:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Case-by-case means we look at each nomination individually, with reference to our policies and guidelines; I was emphasising this since since your original justification for delete was no more than an assertion that the guidelines had changed. FWIW, CONLEVEL it not relevant here, two previous AfDs reached a conclusion of keep on the basis of the guidelines, no one is arguing that the guidelines should be ignored (and that is certainly not what case-by-case means). Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I see no reason in rejecting the piece by Andrew Knight, you've not demonstrated that it is unreliable or lacks independence (if anything the independence is crystal clear as it is from a different political party); that one person of a similar political persuasion says something regarding another political party is hardly grounds for rejection ... and politically like-minded parties are far more likely to reject those closest to them than cooperate. I think its also important to note that the "organisations" flooding Wikipedia with bad sourcing, churnalism, etc are for-profit companies. There are presently 338 registered political parties in Great Britain, and 28 in Northern Ireland; according to Companies House, there are 4 million registered companies in the UK. Using cookie cutter approaches for such vastly, qualitatively different phenomena, is not encyclopedic. And just to be clear, I am not making an argument for 366 articles about every political party in the UK, that should be done case by case. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - pace Chess, there is no risk of spamming if we have reasonable extra-NORG criteria for political parties. In another party AfD, I suggested the criterion of having fielded multiple candidates over several elections, a bar which this party appears to satisfy. Is anyone keeping a tally of parties that previously passed AfD that are deemed to fail NORG now? — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article seems like it currently meets guidelines and none of the arguments for deletion are convincing to me. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2022 (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.