Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Fishing Party (Scotland)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving votes in the elections they have stood in and barely any notable coverage before or after general election. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe. Fails WP:N. Angryskies (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The article does not prove notability, either prior to, during, or after elections, and many of the sources merely prove the party exists rather than supplies evidence of importance. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The amount of non-notable political party articles needing deletion is excessive... --Micky (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There are 8 sources in the article, each independent, reliable, secondary, and containing significant coverage, except for two. This clearly passes WP:GNG Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has changed since the last AFD: with eight independent reliable sources providing significant coverage this clearly meets WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been a previous AFD in respect of this article (Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)) where the result was Keep and there have been no changes since this time. I therefore do not believe that we should go against the previous consensus. Also, and just my view (and probably not relevant), political parties (including minor parties) are exactly the kind of information that should be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia.Tracland (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree absolutely. Emeraude (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The coverage is sufficient to meet the GNG. I'm a little hesitant that there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage outside the 2003-4 period (there's a trivial mention here) which shows a lack of WP:PERSISTENCE that I think casts doubt on the suitability of the subject for an encyclopedia article. I would feel more comfortable supporting keeping this article if there was independent RS significant coverage from, say, any time after 2010. Ralbegen (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's covered by WP:NOTTEMPORARY which says 'once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage'. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to comment that if this article should be kept, then surely the recently deleted Scottish Family Party article (which is still a registered party with the Electoral Commission) should have been kept too if there is going to be consistency with smaller political parties on Wikipedia? There is a lot more recent news coverage from reliable sources WP:RS about the Scottish Family Party than the Fishing Party. The Scottish Family Party discussion can is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scottish_Family_Party
 * Comment A quick note. Just having links to the BBC and Electoral Commission does not mean they are notable or important. It means that they exist. Keep votes have to justify why an article has to exist without proof of notability. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, smaller political parties are treated consistently to the standard of relevant notability guidelines: the GNG and ORG. This party has a number of reliable national news sources writing articles that are just about it. That meets the GNG presumption of notability. Small political parties which don't receive comparable coverage fall short, which is presumably why the Scottish Family Party was deleted. The article has sufficient significant coverage in independent RSes that are already used as references in the article to meet a basic notability threshold. Ralbegen (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2020 (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.