Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Communist Party of Britain


 * 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. TravellingCari 03:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

New Communist Party of Britain

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article reads as mainly WP:OR and what is sourced comes mainly form the group's geocities pages. I have googled around the usbject and find no real evidence that this group has received non-trivial attention in reliable independent sources. Anecdotally, I live in the UK, work in London, was a student in the UK, and have never even heard the name of this group. The list of pamphlets and such suggests advertorial rather than encyclopaedic tone. I would say this either needs sourcing (from things which are not listed on gnews or scholar, since they both come up blank) and rewriting, or nuking. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, though could be persuaded otherwise if reliable sources are added ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to Keep - the new sources show notability, though possible copyvios need to be investigated. – ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - may need severe pruning, but is unquestionably notable. It is covered in the authoritative Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations.  A quick search on Google Books turns up substantial references in works ranging from Modern Britain Since 1979 to Marxism in Britain and the party is even used as an example in the The Oxford Dictionary of New Words. Warofdreams talk 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Links, please. I searched and found nothing of substance; the couple I did find were just directory entries or namechecks. This article looks like it was written by Andy Brooks from his own records, virtually all of it is unsourceable from reliable independent sources as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The works I mentioned are at, ,  and page 156 in .  Really, these are not hard to find - they are the result of two or three minutes searching, and I'm sure that there is much more out there.  A quick search on Google Scholar also brought up some mentions of the group, although not in journals to which I have access. Warofdreams talk 08:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try not to be too patronising here, I do find it somewhat offensive. The first book you cite, I open the book in GBooks, search for "New Communist Party of Britain" within the book and get Your search - "New Communist Party of Britain" - did not match any documents.  The second book spends a small amount of time discussing how hard it is to get any reliable information about the group, but says not much else; it verifies that it exists but that's about it. A third appears to mention it only as having been formed, with no other details at all.  Oxford New Words is also just a namecheck, as far as I can tell, but I don't have access to more than the summary that appears in Google.  As I said, the sources which can be found appear to me to be trivial, directory-style or simple namechecks.  None of these sources appears to amount to non-trivial, provably independent coverage. That's why I nominated the article, because I could not find reliable sources from which to fix the massive problems with the current content, and those sources do not actually help me to do that, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to be patronising, but I do expect you to make some effort. The first book, for example, mentions the "New Communist Party" on the page I have linked to.  I don't accept your characterisation of the second book; it devotes a page to the group and I cannot see any reference to a difficulty in getting reliable information about the group, only that it is difficult to get reliable membership figures (a feature common to many political parties).  I assume that it is the fourth which you cannot find any details in; please look at page 156, which I gave before, where it has further information. Warofdreams talk 20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It ought to be deleted as most of the content is a cut-and-paste job from material on the NCP website and New Worker articles. 125.35.18.20 (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there seems to be sufficient coverage pointed to above to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the party is a notable feature in the British left. Deletion is not the way to deal with the endemic content problems in the article itself. --Soman (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Warofdreams. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's enough coverage in the book sources cited above to provide notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stubify the article as it is needs to be pruned down significantly with any and all original research removed. The sources provided are marginal but given the nature of the topic I think it would be sensible to give editors a chance to find additional reliable sourcing on which a neutral, verifiable article could be written if an acceptable stub could be formed. Guest9999 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this piece should be reduced to a stub and replaced with more convincing material, as the current page has obviously been written by Andy Brooks (the NCP general secretary).Troublemaker1973 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. As far as I can see, there only seems to be a dispute about membership figures, and any number given is unverifiable, so any numbers can only be POV. Clearly the party exists, as I read the New Worker every week, and have phoned their office occasionally. I have looked at the entry for the CPB, and the criticisms of the NCPB entry would apply there too, as with a number of other entries for left groups. It would be a mistake to start doing a hatchet job on any of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.249.184 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (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.