Wales Green Party – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wales Green Party (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The original deletion request may have been politically motivated and therefore highly inappropriate for a page of this type. The National Assembly Elections in Wales are to take place in 2016, News stories have published that Wales Green Party are polled to gain seats in this election for the first time in Wales, therefore this page will become ever more necessary in the coming months. There are also many links to this page from constituency pages and Assembly Regional pages so a delete would create many dead links as well. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] My involvement in this is limited to trying to implement the closing decision to merge the Wales Green Party (WGP) article with Green Party of England and Wales, made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wales Green Party – see Green Party of England and Wales Talk page. I have no view on whether the AfD or the close were correct or not. I would point out, however, that if the closing decision were to be carried out the WGP article would not be deleted, but would be made into a re-direct page. Consequently, no dead-links would be created. Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Suggest speedy-close this review as the request meets none of the requirements of WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose deletion or a redirect of the Wales Green Party Page The original deletion request made a number of erroneous claims about the wales green party, and these have been highlighted by correspondents on the talk page and on this page. But just to recap members in wales elect their own leader, officers and ruling council. And members in wales put together a welsh green manifesto to be presented to the welsh electorate in the elections to the national assembly for wales next may. The affairs of the wales green party are not determined outside wales. While it is frankly semantic nonsense for some to suggest the welsh green party doesnt have a 'leader'. Pippa Bartolotti was very publicly elected leader of the welsh greens in a leadership contest last year http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/11669116.Newport_s_Bartolotti_re_elected_as_Wales_Green_Party_leader/. She is repeatedly referred to in the online, print and broadcast media as being the 'leader of the wales green party', and perhaps the best and most telling examples of this came in the televised debates in wales during last may's general election when pippa bartolotti was billed as the 'leader of the wales green party' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32530830 and http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-05-08/wales-green-party-weve-broken-so-many-records/ In short to everyone in the world - a couple of wikipedia contributors seemingly excepted - the welsh green party has a 'leader'. As for comments about the wales green wikipedia page not being updated well those who made those claims obviously havent visited the page recently.It's not only very up to date but gives a very comprehensive and informative account of the wales green party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_Green_Party. Finally the wales green party candidate's in next year's elections to the welsh assembly will be registered with the electoral commission in wales as standing for the 'Wales Green Party/Plaid Werdd Cymru'. In effect and legally speaking the wales green party exists and is fully deserving of a page in its own right and certainly not deletion or a redirect from another page. No one has the right to downgrade the wikipedia status of what is a legally registered party in wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] I closed the AfD. This appears not to be a request to review the close, but to question the rationale behind the AfD nomination. I'm not sure this is the right venue for such a discussion. If the situation has changed regarding sources for the article, then a talkpage discussion could take place regarding if the article should still be a redirect or could now be a standalone article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] I note that the AfD merge tag has been removed three times: [1], [2], [3]. The edit summaries indicate that it is felt that the merge close was not consensus because there were more keep votes. I think that is a legitimate concern for a review, and if a discussion on the legitimacy of the close were the focus of this review, that might be helpful to prevent continued edit warring. Either that, or a discussion on the talkpage to establish if the new sources are enough to establish the topic as a stand alone article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ultimately, AFD debates can end in the article being deleted, or not-deleted. Whilst there are several variants of not-delete, there is no need for a DRV to change between one of these and the discussion can and should be better dealt with on the article talk page. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] What he said. The requested action does not require an admin, so it's best if this is hashed out on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Back to the Talk page would just point out that those of us in favour of retention were advised to set up this deletion review page. but ok guys then guys, will now return to the talk page and put the arguments for a stand alone page there again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, I would have gone "no consensus" myself, but redirect would seem to be within the discretion we traditonally allow for such messy discussions. The accusations of bad faith against the nominator either need to be substantiated with proof, or withdrawn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC).[reply] Comment, WP:DRVPURPOSE notes Deletion Review may be used if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, which is what I believe to be the issue here, per User:SilkTork above. Nevertheless, if editors endorse the AfD closure, which was to Merge Wales Green Party into Green Party of England and Wales, how would discussing it on the article talk page allow the merge to take place? Surely the practical effect is to re-open the AfD. Please advise. Daicaregos (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] The review statement mentions the motivation behind the AfD, and says there are new sources, but does not discuss the close, which is what this venue is for. Ignoring the bad faith comment about motivation, that there are new sources is an edi6orial discussion, which has no place on a forum to decide if the AfD close was proper or not. The outcome was to merge the contents into another article, which does not delete the material, merely places it elswhere on Wikipedia. A redirect would lead readers to the right place. This is all minor shelving and categorising really, as the content remains in place to be read. As someone commented, it's a minor thing to be raising a review over anyway, as the material has not been deleted. Those who edit the article and are concerned about it are urged to discuss the matter on Talk:Green Party of England and Wales. I am going out now, but when I return I will do the merge (as it hasn't yet been done), and set up a talkpage discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Please do ot do the merge, that is wahat we are all objecting to. It was Daicaregos that advised us to create this DRV, which is why I did so. I would like to point out that I am not meaning to cast aspersions in 'bad faith' about the actual editor who nominated the page for the merge, however I have seen evidence (on another forum) that some to the arguments made for the merge (by at least one) may have been politically motivated. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Just to be clear, I said; "If editors feel the closure was made in error, it should be brought up at Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than here [Talk:Green Party of England and Wales].", per WP:DELREV. That you chose to base the deletion review request on a bad faith claim of "politically motivated" closure was unlikely to win friends or influence anyone to your cause. It would probably be in your interests to reign back the bad faith accusations, to read WP:AGF ... and the two pages noted by SilkTork on the Green Party of England and Wales talk page: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability. Whether you take that advice or not is up to you. Good luck. Daicaregos (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] ~~Overturn~~I would would have closed "Keep, with a recommendation to look into merging". Not an unreasonable close, but I read a discussion heading to somewhere between "no consensus", "Keep" and "merge". I don't think there is quite a consensus for "merge", and indeed, the merge may be a drawn out process that shouldn't be mandated from AfD. I agree with the closer that merging is a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as done, and moot, noting the AfD close does not preclude establishment of a consensus, at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Should_Wales_Green_Party_become_a_standalone_article.3F, to reverse and spin this back out again. Commend SilkTork on his post-close editorial actions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I think it should be noted here that it was, in fact, done after this review process was opened, by the closer, and in full knowledge of the fact. Although doubtless it was just an error of judgement, it does look like an attempt to preempt the issue. Bagunceiro (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - closer followed appropriate guidelines per WP:BRANCH. This is not the appropriate forum for this and I dispute the accusations of bias in the deletion discussion. As an American with no strong feelings either way about the Green Party, I neutrally recommended merge based on evidence and not because of "political motivation." Stating that the article should be restored because there is an election next year and "this page will become ever more necessary", is, however, clear evidence of political motivation. I note (with annoyance) that the deletion review from JUNE called for merging and it was not only not done, people continually removed the merge tag from the page. This is not the way to follow procedure. The page still hasn't been properly merged into the article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I have carried out the merge to prevent further edit warring; the article can now be found as a section within the parent article: Green Party of England and Wales#Wales Green Party, with a redirect from Wales Green Party. I have also opened a discussion to establish if new sources that have come forward since the AfD would allow the article to be restored as a standalone. Talk:Green Party of England and Wales#Should Wales Green Party become a standalone article?. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wales Green Party – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The original deletion request may have been politically motivated and therefore highly inappropriate for a page of this type. The National Assembly Elections in Wales are to take place in 2016, News stories have published that Wales Green Party are polled to gain seats in this election for the first time in Wales, therefore this page will become ever more necessary in the coming months. There are also many links to this page from constituency pages and Assembly Regional pages so a delete would create many dead links as well. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement in this is limited to trying to implement the closing decision to merge the Wales Green Party (WGP) article with Green Party of England and Wales, made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wales Green Party – see Green Party of England and Wales Talk page. I have no view on whether the AfD or the close were correct or not. I would point out, however, that if the closing decision were to be carried out the WGP article would not be deleted, but would be made into a re-direct page. Consequently, no dead-links would be created. Daicaregos (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Suggest speedy-close this review as the request meets none of the requirements of WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion or a redirect of the Wales Green Party Page The original deletion request made a number of erroneous claims about the wales green party, and these have been highlighted by correspondents on the talk page and on this page. But just to recap members in wales elect their own leader, officers and ruling council. And members in wales put together a welsh green manifesto to be presented to the welsh electorate in the elections to the national assembly for wales next may. The affairs of the wales green party are not determined outside wales.

While it is frankly semantic nonsense for some to suggest the welsh green party doesnt have a 'leader'. Pippa Bartolotti was very publicly elected leader of the welsh greens in a leadership contest last year http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/11669116.Newport_s_Bartolotti_re_elected_as_Wales_Green_Party_leader/. She is repeatedly referred to in the online, print and broadcast media as being the 'leader of the wales green party', and perhaps the best and most telling examples of this came in the televised debates in wales during last may's general election when pippa bartolotti was billed as the 'leader of the wales green party' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32530830 and http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-05-08/wales-green-party-weve-broken-so-many-records/

In short to everyone in the world - a couple of wikipedia contributors seemingly excepted - the welsh green party has a 'leader'. As for comments about the wales green wikipedia page not being updated well those who made those claims obviously havent visited the page recently.It's not only very up to date but gives a very comprehensive and informative account of the wales green party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_Green_Party.

Finally the wales green party candidate's in next year's elections to the welsh assembly will be registered with the electoral commission in wales as standing for the 'Wales Green Party/Plaid Werdd Cymru'. In effect and legally speaking the wales green party exists and is fully deserving of a page in its own right and certainly not deletion or a redirect from another page. No one has the right to downgrade the wikipedia status of what is a legally registered party in wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD. This appears not to be a request to review the close, but to question the rationale behind the AfD nomination. I'm not sure this is the right venue for such a discussion. If the situation has changed regarding sources for the article, then a talkpage discussion could take place regarding if the article should still be a redirect or could now be a standalone article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the AfD merge tag has been removed three times: [1], [2], [3]. The edit summaries indicate that it is felt that the merge close was not consensus because there were more keep votes. I think that is a legitimate concern for a review, and if a discussion on the legitimacy of the close were the focus of this review, that might be helpful to prevent continued edit warring. Either that, or a discussion on the talkpage to establish if the new sources are enough to establish the topic as a stand alone article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, AFD debates can end in the article being deleted, or not-deleted. Whilst there are several variants of not-delete, there is no need for a DRV to change between one of these and the discussion can and should be better dealt with on the article talk page. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. The requested action does not require an admin, so it's best if this is hashed out on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Talk page

would just point out that those of us in favour of retention were advised to set up this deletion review page. but ok guys then guys, will now return to the talk page and put the arguments for a stand alone page there again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, I would have gone "no consensus" myself, but redirect would seem to be within the discretion we traditonally allow for such messy discussions. The accusations of bad faith against the nominator either need to be substantiated with proof, or withdrawn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, WP:DRVPURPOSE notes Deletion Review may be used if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, which is what I believe to be the issue here, per User:SilkTork above. Nevertheless, if editors endorse the AfD closure, which was to Merge Wales Green Party into Green Party of England and Wales, how would discussing it on the article talk page allow the merge to take place? Surely the practical effect is to re-open the AfD. Please advise. Daicaregos (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review statement mentions the motivation behind the AfD, and says there are new sources, but does not discuss the close, which is what this venue is for. Ignoring the bad faith comment about motivation, that there are new sources is an edi6orial discussion, which has no place on a forum to decide if the AfD close was proper or not. The outcome was to merge the contents into another article, which does not delete the material, merely places it elswhere on Wikipedia. A redirect would lead readers to the right place. This is all minor shelving and categorising really, as the content remains in place to be read. As someone commented, it's a minor thing to be raising a review over anyway, as the material has not been deleted. Those who edit the article and are concerned about it are urged to discuss the matter on Talk:Green Party of England and Wales. I am going out now, but when I return I will do the merge (as it hasn't yet been done), and set up a talkpage discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do ot do the merge, that is wahat we are all objecting to. It was Daicaregos that advised us to create this DRV, which is why I did so. I would like to point out that I am not meaning to cast aspersions in 'bad faith' about the actual editor who nominated the page for the merge, however I have seen evidence (on another forum) that some to the arguments made for the merge (by at least one) may have been politically motivated. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I said; "If editors feel the closure was made in error, it should be brought up at Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than here [Talk:Green Party of England and Wales].", per WP:DELREV. That you chose to base the deletion review request on a bad faith claim of "politically motivated" closure was unlikely to win friends or influence anyone to your cause. It would probably be in your interests to reign back the bad faith accusations, to read WP:AGF ... and the two pages noted by SilkTork on the Green Party of England and Wales talk page: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability. Whether you take that advice or not is up to you. Good luck. Daicaregos (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~I would would have closed "Keep, with a recommendation to look into merging". Not an unreasonable close, but I read a discussion heading to somewhere between "no consensus", "Keep" and "merge". I don't think there is quite a consensus for "merge", and indeed, the merge may be a drawn out process that shouldn't be mandated from AfD. I agree with the closer that merging is a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as done, and moot, noting the AfD close does not preclude establishment of a consensus, at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Should_Wales_Green_Party_become_a_standalone_article.3F, to reverse and spin this back out again. Commend SilkTork on his post-close editorial actions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it should be noted here that it was, in fact, done after this review process was opened, by the closer, and in full knowledge of the fact. Although doubtless it was just an error of judgement, it does look like an attempt to preempt the issue. Bagunceiro (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - closer followed appropriate guidelines per WP:BRANCH. This is not the appropriate forum for this and I dispute the accusations of bias in the deletion discussion. As an American with no strong feelings either way about the Green Party, I neutrally recommended merge based on evidence and not because of "political motivation." Stating that the article should be restored because there is an election next year and "this page will become ever more necessary", is, however, clear evidence of political motivation. I note (with annoyance) that the deletion review from JUNE called for merging and it was not only not done, people continually removed the merge tag from the page. This is not the way to follow procedure. The page still hasn't been properly merged into the article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have carried out the merge to prevent further edit warring; the article can now be found as a section within the parent article: Green Party of England and Wales#Wales Green Party, with a redirect from Wales Green Party. I have also opened a discussion to establish if new sources that have come forward since the AfD would allow the article to be restored as a standalone. Talk:Green Party of England and Wales#Should Wales Green Party become a standalone article?. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.