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. Sam Walton (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing Party (Scotland)[edit]

Fishing Party (Scotland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability. Not notable by any regard, and against all Wikipedia policies on notability. No notable or credible third party coverage. Nothing to prove they have any credible place in Scottish politics let alone British politics. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.
And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):
I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.
Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.
Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --doncram 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why don't you spend more time trying to improve Wikipedia by adding sources? Here's one. Here's another. There are more. That's all the notability tag means, it doesn't mean it's been determined to be non-notable. -- GreenC 18:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why don't you see that sources should do more than just confirm an organisation exists? I take you back to the core issue: has this group done anything notable? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They have source coverage per GNG. That was my rationale for Keep and others too. -- GreenC 23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Green Cardamom What have they done, specifically? doktorb wordsdeeds 23:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Green Cardamom. To User:Doktorbuk, I've seen you making similar statments elsewhere, confusing your usage of word "notability" with Wikipedia:Notability which is different. I think you'd be clearer if you would use the word "importance" instead. See wp:IMPORTANT, a former criterion for articles. In Wikipedia jargon terms, you believe that "importance" of a topic should be asserted and perhaps proven, while the wp:GNG standard is lower, is essentially about verifiabilty. And also, showing sources exist in the AFD as done by Green Cardamom above is enough to settle the AFD question but not to remove the notability tag in the article. For the AFD, there's no requirement that the sources be added to the article, it just must be shown that sources probably exist, or do exist, which has been done. Couch your arguments at AFD using Wikipedia jargon words that are relevant to Wikipedia AFDs, i suggest to you. Hope this helps. --doncram 23:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To summarize, Doktorbuk, your AFD arguments essentially amount to an argument that the article itself doesn't show adequate sources, which was conveyed already by a tag on the article. You don't need an AFD to tag an article; it already was tagged. Articles can stay tagged for a long time, until someone feels motivated to improve them. The AFD process is not the right way to motivate others to improve an article; there is a saying wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --doncram 23:40, 5 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.
More