Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland) (3rd 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Fishing Party (Scotland)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. Recent discussions and consequent deletions for Independent Green Voice, Scottish Family Party which are active parties that are running candidates show there are recent precedents for the wider Wikipedia community agreeing that not all political parties are notable, and notability does not attach itself to political parties as a right. This article has sources, but no evidence of WP:GNG and WP:ORG and general achievement. This former political party has no evidence of achievement or notability prior to, or following, elections in its 2 years of existence 16 years ago, which is also similar to the recently deleted Publican Party article. Angryskies (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being the main subject of seven articles in reliable sources is SIGCOV, even if the party is defunct. Also, I love this article! It's concise, well formatted, has a perfectly encyclopedic tone and doesn't overstay its welcome. A fun little article. JBchrch (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agreeGRALISTAIR (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As a matter of interest, I noticed you were in favour of deleting the Articles for deletion/Publican Party (3rd nomination) article, which was similar in the number of sources, yet with this article you want to keep it, which appears to have had less coverage than the Publican Party article which was deleted. What is the difference you see between the two articles leading you to two different conclusions regarding retaining and deleting of each article? Angryskies (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the level of coverage was actually very different. For the Publican Party, the coverage was very slim, mentioning the party only in passing, except (IIRC) for one article. Here, on the contrary, we have multiple articles covering the party in depth, as their primary subject. JBchrch (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well written with WP:RS sources and passes WP:GNG Applus2021 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Seems strange that this article should be kept but then none of the other articles mentioned, which had more sources were deleted. Angryskies (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2021 (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) 06:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Previous four comments say it all. Emeraude (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG. We really need to have a centralised discussion about the notability of political parties, and maybe think about creating a standalone guideline to reduce ambiguities in deletion discussions. How much coverage is significant coverage? How much weight do we give to electoral success (or lack of it)? I think creating a rule of thumb to use in these sorts of discussions would be preferable to the current situation, where standards are applied differently from week to week and arguments often consist of "that article was deleted/kept, so this one must be too". PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator that, as Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties, this article does not make the grade of notability and should be deleted. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment to - many years ago (decade or so!) I drafted my own potential soft policy for political parties. I think I'll revisit it over this Bank Holiday weekend and invite comment. As you know, you and I work well on many articles but we seem to diverge on the matter of political party notability and I'd like to see how we "gel" on forming a policy together. As  knows, they and I completely disagree on this subject, with me almost always voting "delete", and they almost always voting "keep". It would be good to Emeraude and I to also find some kind of workable compromise. We cannot, as Wikipedia generally or UK political project editors more generally, allow each and every entry on the Electoral Commission Register to have articles here. It's simply not feasible and the wider community tend to agree. So at some point I'll draft something based on my original idea and we'll get shifting. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment,, I look forward to reading your proposal. I think we both have a roughly similar idea of where that threshold should be, and I'm sure that with the assistance of other editors we will be able to come up with an acceptable solution. Regards, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that per WP:N (my emphasis added) "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and (2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." As this article clearly meets WP:SIGCOV any putative guidelines for political paries would not affect the underlying established notability of this party. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed,, when a party obviously passes the WP:GNG like this one, then it wouldn't be affected by any further guidelines (which I envisage to only be used in situations that aren't as clear-cut). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 13:20, 1 May 2021 (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.