Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of Great Britain debates


 * 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. WjBscribe 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Great Britain debates

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:Notability. These debates are campaigning activities of a minscule political party in the UK. 67 "references" from the in-house Socialist Standard, pamphlets and "Socialist Party Tapes" do nothing whatsoever to convince me that this is a notable topic for an encyclopaedia! It is a classic example of WP:Listcruft. Mais oui! 04:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic regurgitation of internal documents. Illuminates little about the history of the party. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, a list of debates is utterly unencyclopedic. Punkmorten 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite its dry and off-putting appearance, this documents the development of significant strands of UK political thought in the twentieth century. It's not about the history of the SPGB per se; note that speakers include David Steel of the Liberal Democrats, Virginia Bottomley of the Conservatives, Bruce Kent of CND and Stan Newens of the Labour Party. That's a pretty broad range of positions - the appearance of characters like Roger Scruton and organisations such as the Militant Tendency, the Communist Party of Great Britain and the National Front make it even broader. So, definitely worth keeping in my view, despite its unprepossessing appearance. BTLizard 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep - I believe the nominator & delete voters are (forgiveably, due to the confusing name to people without a knowledge of the movement) misunderstanding what this is an article about. These aren't internal debates within a political party, or 'propaganda'; they're a series of major lectures, by people with no connnection to (and generally in direct opposition to) the organisers, organised by a campaigning organisation which occasionally doubles up as a political party. They're the UK political equivalent of the Reith Lectures and Dimbleby Lectures on social topics or the Bakerian Lecture in the sciences, not the British equivalent of List of Republican Party campaign speeches —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Iridescenti, I take your counterargument seriously, but I still miss the notability of this information. What we have is a list of participants and venues ("John Smith vs. Jack Jones, 78 Veddy British Lane, Hedges") that communicates exactly nothing about the events' importance. They don't even give the topic of any individual debate, let alone show how it was covered or noticed, or remembered historically. The introduction does mention a couple of these, but still doesn't communicate the notability of the subject matter very well. As an article, it's primary sources and importance taggable, and as a list it's just obscure. The lecture series you mention I've heard of. So, where are the independent and reliable sources to persuade me? --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Debate" in the sense used here wouldn't be Oxford Union-style debates, in the sense of both sides giving a speech on a topic and the audience then voting on who "won"; rather, they're be "Question Time" style debates, generally with one socialist speaker and one leading member of an opposing group (ranging from the hard left to the neo-Nazis of the National Front), asking questions of each other and answering questions from the audience about how they'd deal with the issues of the day. As such, the debates might have a general theme but wouldn't have a title as such. Sourcing's a problem for this type of thing because it means consulting print archives - the SPGB website doesn't have transcripts of the debates. In my opinion, the sheer volume of WP:N speakers is enough to convince me, but I concede that someone who isn't used to the minutiae of British political history would have to take my word on that. There are 359 unique Ghits on the matter, but they're generally either socialist sites or blogs/forums (including, bizarrely, one on PCImprovements.com) so probably wouldn't satisfy the Non-Trivial Police. —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Categorized under "society topics" JulesH 11:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per BTLizard and Iridescenti. Certain people here have a knack for nominating scholarly relevant articles, although it takes some effort to find them in the sea of crap. Stammer 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Iridescenti nailed it, though it'd be nice to see some expansion of some of the more notable debates such as the most recent one, and the Teddy Taylor one.  Eliminator JR Talk  18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't have to agree with a particular political point of view.Jackfirst 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree that this is WP:Listcruft. I am not convinced the arguments show any reason this list is notable. If the individual debates were covered, with historical context, that would be an entirely different story. This article doesn't provide any useful information about why we should care. Ibanix 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep In many cases the individual debates are in fact sourced. There are projects to digitize 20th century left-wing periodicals and other material, so it should soon be possible to link to on-line accounts. If further information on a particular debate becomes sufficient for a separate article, all the better. DGG 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Indeed; many of these debates have sources other than the Socialist Standard, having been reported in the journals of the opposing parties, or in some cases in the mainstream press.  However, very few of these journals have been digitized yet, which makes it difficult to compile multiple sources.  The current article was written by a professional archivist who went through early printed issues of the Standard, but did not have access to other contemporary journals. —Psychonaut 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This list of debates is actually something that even a professional historian may find useful and stimulating, since it provides information indicating significant historical patterns. Stammer 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Socialist Party of Great Britain is at most a minor left wing group (one of many). The article does not indicate what the debates were about, merely date, place, opponent and their affiliation.  The party may just be sufficinetly notable to appear, but I find it hard to believe that their debates are.  Can the creator improve it?  Peterkingiron 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't it self-evident that a series of debates stretching back more than one century, featuring speakers ranging from Ernest John Bartlett Allen, to Teddy Taylor, to the British Union of Fascists (in 1935 and 1936!), to name but a few, is inherently notable? Stammer 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete no sources and unencyclopediac list--Sefringle 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per several above. Should be developed further of course. I take it "Jehovah's Witless" (1955) is a typo? Johnbod 14:23, 4 May 2007 (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.