Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Democrats (UK)


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 10:45Z 

National Democrats (UK)

 * — (View AfD)

Tiny fringe political party with no national notability. Fielded less than the 50 candidates required to receive a national party political broadcast in the 1997 General Election, therefore their political activities must be classed as local rather than national and thus failing notability requirements for organisations as I cannot find any reliable third party sources to verify the article. It should also be noted that of the 10,829 votes they won in the 1997 election, 4,181 of these were for West Bromwich West which was the constituency of the Speaker and not contested by the major opposition parties. Political activity since then seems to have been minimal.

Would also support a merge with Ian Anderson (politician) as an alternative to deletion. One Night In Hackney 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ian Anderson (politician) nominated for deletion, failed candidates don't generally pass WP:BIO.  Dei zio  talk 15:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. If their existence is verified and they have participated in elections in UK, then there is the possibility that the article could contain useful information. Djcartwright 05:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the party exists at all and has fielded any candidates, it is a legitimate subject of enquiry. DaveApter 11:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even though it is not an important party the article adds something to understanding of British extreme-right politics. Barnabypage 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the entire organisation has precisely 2 members and contested a few seats in one election with negligible success. Allowing this to remain is basically allowing them to buy a Wikipedia page, in the same way they bought their candidacy. Not enough to give them a platform on WP.  Dei zio  talk 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - verifiable, won over 10,000 votes in 1997. The fact that it has only two members now is irrelevant -- Wikipedia has lots of articles about both major and minor parties that no longer exist at all. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this information. Wikipedia also has articles about local parties, such as Independent Kidderminster Health Concern or whatever they're called, that would not meet your "national" criterion. Ground Zero | t 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As documented above, the 10,000 votes is realistically 6,000 due to West Bromwich West. Citing other examples of articles that may not meet Wikipedia guidelines on organisations  does not address the failings of this article.  If the article is verifiable, please introduce reliable third party sources.  One Night In Hackney 16:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (EC) I believe the Kidderminster group hold a seat in the UK Parliament, and have been the subject of many non-trivial media reports in reliable published sources. Winning an arbitrary amount of votes, which constitute a tiny fraction of votes cast, with almost half coming in a constituency uncontested by the major parties does not equal notability. If the Sunday Times report could be verified, and other information also sourced this would be a far more acceptable article.  Dei zio  talk 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep They exist and can be in no way described as a 'local'!! Their influnece within the extreme-right and neo-Nazi fringes of UK politics is well-demonstrated in the article and their members have overlapped with other, perhaps better-known parties. The returns to the Electoral Commission said two members, but remember that such reports are very new and have caused some upset to fringe groups - I would not place much reliance on this. In any case, whatever the strength of the party now, it has recent historical significance and the article succeeds in demonstarting this and shows the links between organsations and individuals. Emeraude 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll use the text from the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability for organisations to expand upon my points:
 * Criteria for organizations
 * Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source.
 * Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to :warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources.  However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.
 * Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found.


 * Assertion of notability
 * Notability can be asserted for organizations through:
 * Inclusion in third party published materials.
 * A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject:
 * For example, in 2004 and 2005, UC Berkeley enforced a moratorium on alcohol for fraternities and sororities. The moratorium became a much covered topic in the media outlets in the San Francisco Bay Area.  While this asserts notability for the moratorium and the Greek system at Berkeley and possibly justifies an article either on the moratorium or the Greek system in general, it does not assert notability for an individual chapter of a fraternity or sorority on campus.


 * The following cannot be used to assert notability:
 * Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article.
 * Internal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the organization itself.
 * Student-run newspapers.


 * The scope of activies are not national or international in scale. No national campaigning for the National Democrats happened in the 1997 General Election, only local compaigning for the small number of candidates they fielded.  Had they fielded 50 candidates and qualified for a party political broadcast, I would happily concede that they campaigned at a national level and were therefore notable.  However this did not happen, and therefore according to guidelines the organisation is not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found. One Night In Hackney 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * deleate per norm i relly see no reason why to keep this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Keep. Alter the article to reflect the fact that the group has now dwindled to insignificance but the group is part of the history of the British far right. Whiteabbey 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I may be a bit biased due to my strong focus on politics, but I believe that any political party that is fielding more than one or two candidates and wins some votes should be considered notable. Now, whether Wikipedia guidelines here are clear enough to say that this is definitely non-notable, I don't really believe so though I won't be upset if that is the conclusion of this afd. --The Way 07:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, All parties, even those who do not win seats in parliaments but have enough following to influence others should be included. The National Democrats have enough following to make the mainstream right jump on their bandwagon. Alf photoman 14:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if the reasoning is to keep parties who have some kind of influence - this lot have none. They are not one of the prominent English nationalist parties that have distracted the Tories into losing the last couple of elections, they are less covered than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party and have slightly less chance of forming a Government. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep My opinon is that it is noteable. The article needs to be cleaned up and sourced better for sure. Davidpdx 12:50, 27 December 2006 (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.