Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular Alliance (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   keep. L Faraone  22:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Popular Alliance (UK)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dead links to official websites and barely any credible third party coverage aside, this article is clearly a thin promotional piece for an inactive political party, and as such fails Wikipedia policy on notability and organisations. The Populist Alliance has not taken part in ANY of the 22 by-election for the current Parliament, so cannot point to ANY active political campaigning. They cannot prove any elected officials at ANY level, so cannot satisfy Wikipedia policy on being a party with official active politicians on any level of British electoral administration. I cannot see any reason why they should have an article when using Wikipedia policy on organisations, they most certainly are not a part of British politics by any measure. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No refs, a google search unearthed nothing other than an official website that doesn't even have the article name. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Instead of moaning about dead links, repair them. (The Electoral Commission records this party as being deregistered in October this year - the record is there though the link has changed.) Instead of complaining about lack of third party coverage, find some. Nominator says "this article is clearly a thin promotional piece for an inactive political party" - hardly! - but if it is, then edit it. Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude
 * If you can update that dead link reference,that would be helpful. I have yet to find any third party coverage, and if you know of any please add it.  If significant third party coverage exists then of course the page should survive, but I for one can't find any. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect (changed from Keep). This is one of a number of UK political party AFDs opened by same nominator.  All seem to have been registered political parties.  This one may or may not have less references immediately available.  But as with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG is shown, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep.  No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those others, seems wasteful of community attention.  When/if a number of the AFDs are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others. -- do  ncr  am  21:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Or merge/redirect to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, per my comment below....redirecting rather than deleting is superior. -- do  ncr  am  11:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs more sources but sufficient to keep for now. -- Green  C  20:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note "The Populist Alliance has not taken part in ANY of the 22 by-election for the current Parliament, so cannot point to ANY active political campaigning. They cannot prove any elected officials at ANY level, so cannot satisfy Wikipedia policy on being a party with official active politicians on any level of British electoral administration" [<-that is a quote by nominator of their own nomination statement at top of AFD, not a quote from elsewhere, and this confused me--doncram]. As this remains true and accurate, can I ask User:Green Cardamom, User:doncram, User talk:Jonathan A Jones, and User:Emeraude how they can say with a straight face that this party is "notable"? It's all very well saying "they have third party coverage", but a) it's barely anything worth talking about and would not satisfy many other editors when faced with the same evidence, and b) it's not coverage of notable success, so fails Wikipedia policy. They have not taken part in ANYTHING for YEARS, they are not a political party doing ANYTHING of note by any measure, so how can you support this article wasting space? I ask you to look at the readership stats for this article - is it worth voting "Keep" for that amount? Please reconsider your opinions. I remain adamant that this article, and all the others on my current tranche of AfDs, must be removed. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please point to precisely where you think I have said (with a straight face or otherwise) that this party is notable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To doktorb, you seem to be citing some accepted or proposed notability standard for political parties (though there is only one quote mark, so i am not sure what passage is a quote). Could you please link to the notability standard you refer to?  -- do  ncr  am  11:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see now: Doktorbuk's quote at "*Note "The Populist Alliance..." above was a self-quote of their nomination statement at the top of this AFD, it was not a partial quote of any Wikipedia notability standard or proposal. I added an italicized note after the quote to clarify, i hope. -- do  ncr  am  20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:doncram I am using notability guidelines coupled with common sense. If a political party is neither active nor has history of notability, then how can they be notable? doktorb wordsdeeds 14:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if you want to understand what notability means on Wikipedia then read Notability. Secondly, could I have an answer to my question above please? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not all about policy. They do not meet policy guidelines, on top of not being notable 'in the real world'. Can you prove to me that they are (not that they have been written about, that they are notable). If I have misinterpreted your stance on this, I apologise, I may have mixed up your post on another AfD doktorb wordsdeeds 17:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , contrary to your comment above; It's not all about policy, I want to let you know that its all about wikipedia policy here. I strongly suggest that you should follow the wikipedia policy and not your own personal policy. You may need to consider reading WP:Notability and WP:GNG as well.  Wikicology (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Wikicology, you are mistaken. We can dismiss rules if we need to. I can see a party which has not achieved anything, has not taken part in any high profile campaigns, appears nowhere in any current news media. How can Wikipedia call them notable on these terms? doktorb wordsdeeds 18:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable per significant coverages in reliable sources. Wikicology (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Balderdash User:Wikicology, and you know it. This party has achieved nothing notable, in the real world, and therefore breaks Wikipedia policy. This site does not act in isolation. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, all that matters in an AFD is Wikipedia notability, largely to be gauged on whether reliable sources are believed to exist, not any other type of notability. And it is very important that wikipedia-notability is not temporary, while the deletion nominator is mistakenly using current status of the party as an influential factor in their thinking.  As for "real world" notability/importance, we all should feel free to use that in choosing topics where we choose to make contributions in wikipedia.  But what's important to some is not at all important to others, and we can't judge those others, and it seems not helpful to go around trying to tear down their contributions.... :) . -- do  ncr  am  20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:
 * Articles for deletion/4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)
 * Articles for deletion/Britannica Party (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Countryside Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)
 * Articles for deletion/Free England Party
 * Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Miss Great Britain Party
 * Articles for deletion/New Nationalist Party (UK)
 * Articles for deletion/Roman Party
 * Articles for deletion/The Common Good (political party)
 * Articles for deletion/Patriotic Socialist Party (2nd nomination)
 * For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.
 * And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):
 * Articles for deletion/Fishing Party (Scotland)‎
 * Articles for deletion/Independent Green Voice
 * Articles for deletion/Scottish Democratic Alliance
 * Articles for deletion/Yorkshire First
 * I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD).  But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on.  Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.
 * Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation.  And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.
 * Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs.  This is NOT wp:canvassing;  it is appropriate to point out the commonalities;  this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages.   My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these.  I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). -- do  ncr  am  11:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Being inactive is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Emeraude, prove to me that this political party has achieved enough as a political party to be considered a notable organisation. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No need. GNG does not require a subject to have achieved anything.Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is every need. User:Emeraude, if a party has not achieved anything, they are not notable, surely? doktorb wordsdeeds 18:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the same as achievement. Wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability. Although achievements enhance notability. Wikicology (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Being "adamant" that all the articles must be deleted doesn't help...what matters is Wikipedia notability, which has not been the argument for deletion, and there have been some other misunderstandings (e.g. missing the fact that notability does not need to be current), so I tend to think all 15 AFDs should be closed with KEEP. Allowing for new discussion of a selected one, strictly about whether it meets Wikipedia notability standards.  Clearly some of the articles are slam-dunk KEEPs on wikipedia-notability standards;  I suggest picking one that is not so clear, not sure if this Popular Alliance (UK) is the best one or not.  But for sake of reducing confusion, I suggest all be closed KEEP for now. -- do  ncr  am  20:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I think this is probably the only one of this vast pile of AFDs which is actually justified. It is, of course, true that just about everything Doktorbuk says above is complete nonsense, but I struggle to see that this party achieves the basic WP:GNG threshold: the fact that his arguments are completely and utterly wrong doesn't mean that his conclusions are. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 23:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But, well, I don't think a bunch of editors should have to search through all 15, just on odd chance.  But okay Jonathan A Jones, i change my vote to Merge and Redirect instead (with target the UK political parties list-article.  Certainly including the reference info there, that this was a short-lived party, is appropriate. -- do  ncr  am  23:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not even clear to me what name we should be looking for the party under -- Popular Alliance, Populist Alliance, or Populist Party. As a second choice, redirect to the List of political parties in the United Kingdom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and bring out the cluebat: Seriously, dude. Exactly what policy requires that an organization be currently active and currently achieving anything?  The US Whig and Federalist parties haven't won any elections in what, centuries?  What genuine policy grounds do you have to advocate deletion?  Notability does not have a sell-by date.  Nha Trang  Allons! 21:08, 12 December 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.