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. There is no possible delete closure on the !votes given, although I note Secret's comment. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Nationalist Party (UK)[edit]

New Nationalist Party (UK) (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)

Non notable, defunct party without any notable or important electoral results, no evidence of significant role in English or British politics, nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections, and no evidence of credible third party sources proving notability as measured by Wikipedia guidelines. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's defunct is a stupid argument. So are the vast majority of parties that have articles on Wikipedia including many very famous ones (Whigs, Liberals etc) - it's a non-argument.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that is a repository of knowledge. Researchers and readers that come across New Nationalist Party elsewhere or even in Wikipedia are supposed to find out more.... where?
Nominator says there is "no evidence of credible third party sources". What? BBC News, Searchlight, Birmingham City Council, Electoral Commission - not reliable?!!
Nominator says "nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections". Again, same applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, but the article does make it clear that this party was dissolved in 2009 so what's surprisingh about that. Another non-argument.
No "notable or important electoral results" - well it didn't win that's for sure, but this also applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, just within UK.
The NNP was a significant though temporary development in the history of far right politics in the UK and an important part in the narrative of the break up of the BNP. Sharon Ebanks and others invovled in it have been major players in all of this.
It should be noted that the nominator has embarked on a crusade to delete a whole series of articles on political parties that he deems non-notable; when an AfD is declined, he returns later and makes another nomination, and another. There does not seem to be any effort to actually assess what significance a party has/had or to consider any of them within a wider context. Emeraude (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Emeraude, your first point invalidates the rant which follows. Yes, the Whigs are defunct, but they are demonstrably notable and made quite an impact on British political history. Can you answer the direct question - "Is the New Nationalist Party making an impact on British political history"?
As for the wider point about being on some kind of crusade against Wikipedia articles; again, you are wrong. I am aware that there are very well regarded Wikipedia policies against this site being a collection of indiscriminate material. I am merely keeping up that policy brief: Wikipedia is not a dump for every single piece of human knowledge. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case. If the first reason you give for deleting this article is that the party is defunct, then it's entirely logical that other defunct parties should also go. You're not suggesting that - and neither am I - but is's a spurious argument to put up as your main rationale. I noticed that in the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination) you stated that "The Whigs are self evidently notable"; "demonstrably notable" is a bit of an improvement, but neither is a counter to me saying that being defunct is not a rationale for deletion. As for your crusade, it certainly seems that way. It is true that there a number of so-called parties that really are just one person having a bit of fun and, by and large, these could be deleted, but in this case (and Libertarian Party) we are dealing with genuine parties that have had some part, however small, in the deveopment of (right wing) politics in the UK and to delete them leaves readers in total ignorance when they come across their names in other Wikipedia articles, or in the real world and they want Wikipedia to give some information. It's minor role, compared to the Whigs, is amply reflected in the minimal ampount of space that the article occupies. Emeraude (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that User:Keresaspa, a long time and respected editor with considerable expertise on right wing extremism, has added detail to the article, including more references to add to those which you earlier falsely described as having "no evidence of credible third party sources". Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Emeraude, you are focusing on one element of my nomination without looking at the whole. This party is a) not notable, and b) defunct. The latter would not be worth much as a reason to delete the article *on its own* were it not for the first factor. As I have said, and you have ignored, defunct parties such as the Whigs are clearly notable, their history speaks for themselves. I ask again, as you have ignored, can you answer the direct question "Is this party notable?" doktorb wordsdeeds 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, being defunct is of no relevance whatsoever and it does not strengthen your first assertion that the party is not notable. It is worth looking at Wikipedia:Notability here which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Emeraude (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 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 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Secret account 23:28, 3 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