Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)


 * 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)

Fishing Party (Scotland)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Keep This article seems to me not to be against any "Wikipedia policies on notability". The BBC and Scotsman seem credible third party sources to me. They are also notable in wikispeak (BBC, The Scotsman) although that aspect is not relevant here. The material they report clearly is not any sort of press release. There is no requirement for articles to be restricted to parties with a "credible place in Scottish politics". Surprisingly, I have found a book with a substantial paragraph on the party. Thincat (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:
 * Articles for deletion/4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)
 * Articles for deletion/Britannica Party (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Countryside Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)
 * Articles for deletion/Free England Party
 * Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Miss Great Britain Party
 * Articles for deletion/New Nationalist Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Roman Party
 * Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party)
 * Articles for deletion/Patriotic Socialist Party (2nd nomination)
 * 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?):
 * Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)‎
 * Articles for deletion/Independent Green Voice
 * Articles for deletion/Scottish Democratic Alliance
 * Articles for deletion/Yorkshire First
 * 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). -- do  ncr  am  19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. -- Green  C  19:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * '''Question to User:Thincat, User:Green Cardamom, User:Doncram, User:Jonathan A Jones, and others. This article has been tagged for notability concerns for some time, without any editor (including yourselves) doing anything to repair this. If the article is flagged as potentially not-notable, how can you vote "Keep"? doktorb wordsdeeds 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Green  C  18:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes. They have source coverage per GNG. That was my rationale for Keep and others too. -- Green  C  23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Green Cardamom What have they done, specifically? doktorb wordsdeeds 23:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Green Cardamom. To User:Doktorbuk, I've seen you making similar statments elsewhere, confusing your usage of word "notability" with 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. -- do  ncr  am  23:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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. -- do  ncr  am  23:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I have now tidied up the artcle and added another six references, all of which were easy to find. Given the extensive discussion of the party in a range of reliable sources the article clearly meets WP:GNG: there are eight reliable secondary sources (BBC News Online, The Times, The Scotsman, The Herald (Glasgow), and a book), seven of which "addresses the topic directly and in detail", with the last one being used to source a single fact (an election result). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.