Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Community Issues Party


 * 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. An unusual situation where the author of the article argues for deletion and the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. I am not convinced that everybody will deem the party notable based on a few news stories, but there is certainly not a sufficient consensus for deletion at this time. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

UK Community Issues Party

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

I have not been able to find a reliable, independent, and secondary source offering non-trivial coverage of this party. As a result, I believe the article breaks WP:N. Some people may argue that all political parties are notable, but I do not believe a party, which fielded three candidates back in 2005-gaining only 502 votes total for all three-can be considered notable. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Avram has been able to find numerous sources that, although individually do not offer significant coverge, together suggest that UK Community Issues Party is notable enough for Wikipedia. As a result, I would like my Nomination Withdrawn. Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC) *Weak, qualified Keep: I just did a wholesale rewrite of the article. It might still have notability problems, but it is now in line with quality and sourcing guidelines. I don't think that the article in it current state would have attracted a RfD, even if it might still be of borderline notability. But now that I've invested time, I'm a little biased. Avram (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete completely non-notable, I'm afraid. Sticky Parkin 22:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with JEdgarFreeman, no reliable independent secondary sources offering non-trivial coverage, so this should go. Warofdreams talk 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to note that Warofdreams is the creator of the article. Thank you for your agreement that it should be deleted, Warofdreams.   JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: There was a full-length story on the party in the local newspaper. Citation added to the article, along with a couple more mentions that add nice, third-party tidbits to the piece. Between the 3+ campaigns it has unsuccessfully participated in and the media coverage, I think this should pass WP:N. Avram (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Of all the sources that are cited in the article, including the ones that have recently been listed, the closest I have come to discovering a "full-length story", is this source . This source is mainly focused on a candidate of the party, as opposed to the party itself, which means that the source is not a "full-length story on the party".  Having said that, the coverage of the party itself in the source is more than trivial, imo.  However, WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources [plural] that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." Unfortunately, of the other two sources that have been recently been listed by Avram (the third recently listed source was the one that I have addressed above), both are offering only trivial coverage, with one merely stating "UK Community Issues Party, led by Woking’s Michael Osman, stood in two wards and polled 110 votes across the two" with regards to the UK Community Issues Party; and the other stating that the UK Community Issues Party has registered a same complaint as the Labour Party did, with the Labour Party's complaint receiving the significant coverage in the source.  In summary, whilst the first source I addressed does provide non-trivial coverage, WP:N states that multiple reliable, and independent sources offering significant coverage are needed, and I do not believe that has been statisfied by the article.  Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment JEdgarFreeman, I understand your concern that this is a truly fringe party without any chance of going anywhere. I continued to look at Surrey news, and found a couple more pieces of information. Taken together, I feel that the half-dozen small-to-medium mentions of the party amount to pretty good evidence that this is a persistent gadfly in local politics. The party, broadly speaking, has fielded candidates at least four times, and it's still active. Resilience, continued media interest (even not so major interest), long-term participation in political processes-- what else can you ask for? No, it's not going to win. Avram (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Avram, firstly, thank you for the work you have put into the article. It has definetly improved.  Unfortunately, I do not believe it now passes WP:N, as WP:N states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic."    The Electoral Commission only offers trivial coverage of the party (specifically, the Electoral Commission has published directories, listing votes obtained by the party, the fact that it is registered e.t.c.).  The UK Community Issues Party websites that are cited in the article are not "independent of the subject", and thus cannot be used to establish notability according to WP:N.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment JEdgarFreeman, I think that the proposed notability standards for political parties would count this party as notable, as it fulfills "The Campaign Clause". Additionally, while it's not the only one of them to come under fire for notability, most of the other parties just above the 500-vote mark in the 2005 UK general election also have articles. Again, imagine this article hadn't been so abysmal in the first place. I don't think we'd think twice about keeping it. Avram (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, Notability (political parties) is a proposed guideline, as you have said, rather than an actual guideline. As for articles on parties who have had the same amount of success as the UK Community Issues Party, those articles themselves may not be warranted.  As has been stated on other deletion discussions, the fact that an article exists of the same claim to notability as an article being considered for deletion, does not mean that the article being considered for deletion should be kept.  As they say, if a million people make a mistake, it's still a mistake.  I do want this article to be kept, so long as it meets WP:N.  It is because I do not believe this article meets WP:N that I would have made the decision to nominate it for deletion, even if the first time I had seen the article was in its improved state under Avram.  Trivial coverage in The Electoral Commission websites, and websites that are not independent of the subject, are not enough to establish notability according to WP:N.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 09:22, 23 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.