Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriotic Socialist Party (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   speedy delete. The article was deleted by User:TomStar81 per CSD G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". NorthAmerica1000 17:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Patriotic Socialist Party
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A case of "as above, see below" with this. Having fought just two by-elections, and "achieving" lost deposits in both, the PSP remain a hobby horse without any WP:NOTABILITY or importance whatsoever. This article has been hastily recreated on the back of a second by-election failure, with barely any second or third party sources to prove notability or importance, there is no indication of importance within British politics generally, and no evidence of campaigning outside minor local elections. Fails almost all Wiki guidelines on organisations, importance, and notability. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC) doktorb wordsdeeds 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional note The article has been marked for Speedy Deletion 22/11 doktorb wordsdeeds 10:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Further note The article has been deleted doktorb wordsdeeds 07:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The above arguments for deletion would apply to nearly all the parties in List of political parties in the United Kingdom. I think that if a party has participated in a parliamentary election (whatever the result) then it is notable. Biscuittin (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly speedily as a recreation of deleted content. Biscuittin above doesn't seem to recognise that the usual notability criteria apply to political parties: merely existing and contesting elections doesn't make a party notable. If it did, we would have articles on thousands of tiny trivial parties. A party which has never been elected to anything, has no notable members, and has never received significant attention from the media, is not notable and shouldn't have an article; in the case of this one, that judgement was reached at the previous AFD in May, and nothing substantial appears to have changed since then. Robofish (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think everybody shares your view. If they did then most of the articles listed in List of political parties in the United Kingdom would already have been deleted. Biscuittin (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A registered political party that contested the 2014 local elections and two Parliamentary by-elections, all of which are sourced. Results are irrelevant. Has a representative on the Wittering Parish Council in the form of a defector from UKIP.
 * A parish council is not important or relevant enough for Wikipedia doktorb wordsdeeds 21:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Same as last time WP:GNG not being met. Add the required third party reliable sources and I'll change to keep but if anything this new version is worse than the one deleted on that score. Keresaspa (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Still doesn't differ from the reasons for it's first deletion. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. I could change my mind as I am generally an inclusionist on these things.  However the PSP seems to still fail the notability criteria due to the current dearth of reliable third party sources in the article.  We have three sources currently.  (1) The group's website, (2) council results notifications and (3) two articles from the media (BBC and East Anglian Daily Times).
 * The group's website is never going to be sufficient for notability. Council results simply prove that the party has unsuccessfully stood in some elections and the BBC and EADT only mention that the party has stood in elections.  There is simply no reliable third party coverage that does anything more than state that they exist and unsuccessfully stand in elections.
 * So the argument seems to boil down to whether standing in elections is in itself a claim for notability. There is not a test that I know of around that.  In my opinion standing for one election to the national legislature would not in itself be a sufficient test - then we'd have separate entities for each one of Bill Boaks ballot descriptions.  Parties that would get to any threshold would have in almost all cases been covered by reliable third party sources, which is why there should be some caution in looking for such a rule.
 * JASpencer (talk)


 * Keep It's a political party contesting (amusingly ineffectively) elections in the UK.  Re. the Bill Boaks point, that's just rebranding and easily handled on his page (in this case, there should not be separate pages for the UPP and PSP).  We have an article on Lewisham People Before Profit, which is similarly small (albeit with double the vote in Rochester & Strood).  Bromley86 (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Contested speedy deletion I have contested speedy deletion at Talk:Patriotic Socialist Party. Biscuittin (talk) 14:39, 22 November 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.