Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Socialist Party United Left


 * 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 of the debate was keep. This means only that the article gets kept for now; it can be re-nominated for AfD and deleted after a reasonable period of time. Kimchi.sg 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Socialist Party United Left


"Political faction" started 8 DAYS AGO with NO results on Google. Please speedy if possible. mboverload @ 09:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy - under "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages." Viridae 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep See comment below. Viridae 12:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD:A7. --Coredesat 10:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure if this should be kept or deleted, but it doesn't seem like a speedy to me. The article certainly asserts some notability. the wub "?!"  11:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Long, unsigned statement by anon, assuming bad faith by the nominator, moved to the talk page. ➨  ЯEDVERS  12:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not feel that many of the opening comments of the above (comment has been moved to talk page) statement belong in AfD or anywhere else in wikipedia. This is a debate of the validity of the article on wikipedia, and not a comment on the intentions of the editor who nominated the article or those editors thus far who have supported it for speedy deletion. My political motivations do NOT play a part in my decision to support this AfD or any AfD in wikipedia. I do not live in/have anything more than a tenuous ancestral relationship with the country in which the party resides, a fact plainly obvious upon sight of my userpage. I ask that the above editor restrict themslves to comments that will further the debate of the deletion, not personal attacks. This said I change my vote in light of the new information. Viridae 12:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the SSP United Left should have a Wikipedia entry - it now has several google results - but I'm concerned that the entry here contains references to somewhat biased sources and also some POV, and might need some further work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redguscat (talk • contribs).

Long, unsigned statement by anon moved to the talk page. ➨  ЯEDVERS  15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I would just like to point out to Anon that wikipedia is not the place to showboat your new political party. Viridae 13:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * week keep Merge per Metropolitan90. and I certainly do not feel that this is a candidate for speedy deletion. There are plenty of groupings within the political left in Britain. Not all of them have articles. At the moment this organisations only claim to notability is its existance and it's entirely possible that it might not even exist six monthes from now. however this would seem to meet the requirements in WP:NOTABILITY being the subject of outside media reports. Although the article certainly needs rewriting. At the moment it sounds like a press release. Ydam 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the most significant information and redirect to Scottish Socialist Party. This faction/platform does not appear to be getting significant news coverage as a result of its founding -- only 1 Google News hit for ("united left" (ssp | scottish)). --Metropolitan90 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep give it a chance to pick up news coverage. Mustafa Bevi 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Long, unsigned statement by anon moved to the talk page. ➨  ЯEDVERS  15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once the news coverage starts in and the group attains notability, it will be appropriate for them to have an article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Metropolitan90 Jumbo Snails 19:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Scottish Socialist Party. The organization might become notable enough to have its own article at some future date, but for now it isn't. Oldelpaso 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator Hmmmm...I seem to have struck a nerve.  Look, I don't even LIVE in Scottland.  I didn't even KNOW they had a socialist party.  Had you actually read my userpage, you would have seen I'm an American. As you can see I actually bothered to put it up for AFD and stuck the speedy tag on later because of the first two votes saying to speedy it.  The anon comments are actually pretty humorous - accusing Google of supressing them and saying Wikipedia should block me =D The purpose of an AFD is to DISCUSS IT. I fail to see why these anon users seem intent on labeling me as some kind of evil capitalist out to get them. I look forward to future votes and a few giggles. --mboverload @  20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- I propose to call Mboverload a capitalist tool of repression. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Recently launched group, 0 Google hits for full name, 50 for "SSP United Left". At best, would warrant a couple of sentences in the Scottish Socialist Party article. —Centrx→talk 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as I am aware, the Scottish Socialist Party are in the process of a split, as happens to most parties of the left in time, and these lot are the result of that split. In time, they will become a registered party and no doubt will fight elections. doktorb | words 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, pretty much per Kuzaar. The article openly states that this is a "proposed platform", rather than a political party. WP:CHILL fellas.  Dei zio  talk 22:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, while the article has many external links, they appear to be to sites that are not reliable sources, such as en.wikipedia.org or rebelinkcolumns.blogspot.com. At the very least, clean up, as there is excessive use of weasel words.  GRBerry 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Centrx and GRBerry; Scotland on Sunday even got the name wrong (United Front) on 17 June and no mentions in the Herald. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you view the edit history for Scottish Socialist Party United Left, you will actually note that at 00:41 21 June 2006, a link/reference to the online website of the Scottish Socialist Party's newspaper, the Scottish Socialist Voice newspaper was removed, the editor claiming that because they believed it to be "self-promotion?", it required removal. Notwithstanding the fact, that links and references to sources and bodies cited are a requirement under Wikipedia's [], following reinstatement of the link, the editor who deleted the newspaper hypertextlink then LATER nominated the article for deletion on grounds that would appear to have NOW been extensively and ably rebuffed. There has been much reference (and importance placed in some comments) to the groups name appearing on search engines.  Notwithstanding the fact that a topic coming up on search results on Google does not represent valid grounds for dismissing the existence of a group (the group's very own website IS linked to within the article), the statement made by the proposed deletor in support of their deletion proposition does not correlate with the facts NOW, given as of 1324GMT Thursday 22 June 2006 "SSP UNITED LEFT" solicits a considerable quantity of hits and extensive commentary across many reporting platforms on Google. This also clearly refutes the proposed deletor's contention "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages", a comment which we now note has now been rejected, and indeed scored through (see top of page). Much as many would like it to be, profit-driven corporations such as Google News are not the arbiters of what is or is not news or newsworthy. What is or is not news is entirely determined in a dynamic, symbiotic relationship between multiple purveyors and myriad consumers of that news. The fact that any one individual does not regard a topic or issue as news, does not mean it becomes 'un-news' to everyone else. There are MANY web-based stories regarding Scottish Socialist Party United Left (or "SSP United Left" for short).  Whatsmore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  The newsworthiness of an event, should be an afterthought.  Importance and interest our forethought.  We feel the importance and interest in this topic to be more than clear, and indeed in microcosm more than ably indicated by the level of contribution to this discussion regarding it's proposed deletion!It's worth pointing out that while the entry is titled "Scottish Socialist Party United Left", Scottish Socialist Party is commonly abbreviated to SSP, which helps explain why the latter i.e. "SSP UNITED LEFT" has many hits, and the former, i.e. "Scottish Socialist Party United Left",  has few. Furthermore, the article has been written and edited with reference to and in attempted full compliance with Wikipedia content policies.  It is worth pointing out that a group, subject or topics existence is not solely and blindly determined by any online references it happens to have on the internet.  Online reference does not confer a greater level of reality, identity or legitimacy than off-line. Nor should undue weight be placed on this as a criteria for worthiness or inclusion within an encyclopedia, whether it be an online or off-line version. It will be clear from actual reading of the article and it's sources that the importance of the organisation mentioned therein is extensively and indisputably asserted. As such - the article - containing clear and present value of an important subject and topic and clear assertation of this, does not remotely represent a valid subject for deletion.  This is in line with Wikipedia's founding spirit and philosophy. Furthermore, being written by a number of independent commentators, there is no evidence contained therein that the article represents a vanity article. Regarding the importance of the topic  (which is a proposed Wikipedia policy). Clearly the emergence of a new faction or grouping within one of Scotland's leading left-wing political parties, a party which is in crisis and has been headline news for months does represent clear evidence, and I quote "that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)." While we would reiterate our disagreement with the simpicity and independent objectivity of a google hit orientated argument as being a key and acceptable (if somewhat crude) benchmark of a topic's importance - we would point out that "scottish socialist party" typed into google, solicits 193,000 results http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22scottish+socialist+party%22&meta= typing "ssp united left" into google a faction which has emerged within the party (total membership 3000: total faction signatories currently about 150) solicits 62 results on google after ONLY a few days of being in existence. Since its inception, even a casual glance at the history of the organisation it seems clear that - like it or loathe it - the Scottish Socialist Party has been something of a political phenomenon which has achieved a great deal on the Scottish political stage, for the Scottish people, many of them poor, disabled and disadvantaged. Most people will feel that such a group - politically under represented at the political debating table for many years - does not deserve to be casually described or derided (even unwittingly or accidently) as an unremarkable group of people, nor have the early history of the founding of a completely new network within the party, which includes many important human rights campaigners and leading members of the Scottish Parliament (which is effectively Scotland's semi-autonomous national government!) dismissed as vain, or even worse casually deleted from history by Wikipedia. Not if Wikipedia wishes to truly aim to properly service the accurate, fair and balanced information needs of people worldwide, both today and into the future. This, we feel, would betray and undermine all the good work that Wikipedia has achieved since its foundation. We thank you for your continued support in helping bring clarity and level-headedness to this matter and trust you will help continue to keep the beacon of truth alive on the site. The fact that many organisations, people and/or websites do not subscribe a news feed to Google News, does not make anything they have to say 'un-news' and represent a lack of coverage, significant or otherwise. Yes the Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday newspaper did get the name wrong, calling it "SSP United Front" instead. No matter. Until recently their story was being reported on four Scotsman group websites, and now one. Whether a story or happening in the world receives no coverage, little coverage or a lot of coverage is entirely inconsequential. In the shifting sands of 24/7 news, and in particular the bolting race horse that is 'net news', it doesn't change the fact that that event did happen or continues to happen. We are all well aware that there are many happenings in the world (and many injustices) that never see the light of day in the media. It is worth reminding ourselves time and time again that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The word encyclopedia - derived from Greek - means "all round education". It is not possible to give people an all round education, by leaving certain segments of the circle out or giving certain angles less prominence than they deserve. 172.141.16.153 13:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The above is the only contribution from this IP address. However, they demonstrate more knowledge of Wikipedia than the average brand new individual.GRBerry 13:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To elaborate on my argument above, at Wikipedia we don't think being a non-reliable source is a bad thing. After all, by our own standards for reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and all the regulars here think that Wikipedia is a good thing.  We just, by the official policy against original research, can't use material sourced to a non-reliable source, no matter how important the topic is.  Once there is coverage in media that meets the fact-checking standards required to be a reliable source, write an article using solely that material.  See WP:FORGET for a semi-humorous guide on how to do this.  (The suggestions for how to "forget everything you know on the subject" are humorous, the rest of that essay is quite serious.)  GRBerry 13:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge, while I think that the subject is notable, it is notable only in the context of the SSP's notablity and could be covered in the SSP article.--JK the unwise 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC) That said there is currently a page for the Veritas Members Association which if notable at all is so only because it is part of Veritarse. hmmm...--JK the unwise 15:13, 27 June 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.