Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Fascist 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Universal Fascist Party
Unsubstantiated hate speech Thumper 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable organization. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
 * Delete, vanity article.Gateman1997 00:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, see above --Thephotoman 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity article. - Stlemur 00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, there's no indication that they are any more than a small online discussion group -Meegs 02:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete More relevant than what we might think about the politics of hate is the fact of non-notability. Flapdragon 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity advertisement. --Hurricane111 03:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. Olorin28 04:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a flawed nomination. (1) If you have actually read the article in question, you will see that there is no hate speech in the article. (2) The group is certainly substantiated if you would bother to make a Google search for it: approximately 150 solid hits. (3) The article does not appear to be vanity as some users are claiming here. It appears to be a  reasonably factual report on the group. I see no espousing of dogma in this article. So the only issue left here is notability, and in fact it does seem to be a rather obscure group. However, we do not delete articles from the Wikipedia because we don’t like the politics of the subject of the article. If we were to do that, we would delete Nazism, White supremacy, Skinhead, Apartheid, and myriad other groups and subjects. I have no particular interest in the UFP, but don’t delete articles because you think the subjects of the article are despicable. &#9678;DanMS 06:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Flawed nomination? Possibly. Reason to vote keep? Not a chance. The article itself says it's hard to know how much support this mob has, which is not a convincing assertion of notability. Reyk 06:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment With all due respect, I disagreed with DanMS' assertion that the group is notable and the nomination is flawed. Although Google search appears to provide 150 solid hits, a closer look reveals that the original hit count is 32 .  This already includes 2 from Wikipedia, plus group's responses to various blogs/forums.  Furthermore, I did a quick search in Google's news and it does not show any news article based on the group.  From the above reasons, I have strong doubts about the group's notability.  Another point that I want to raise is that Wikipedia has a policy on Verifiability.  The allegation posted regarding Yahoo's decision to delete the group and/or Yahoo's position on internet censorship is only allegation and not supported by evidence (other than the group's claim on its webpage).  Therefore, I had voted delete earlier and do not believe this nomination to be flawed.  After all, assertion that article is unsubstantiated can be considered as a valid reason for afd.  --Hurricane111 06:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Response:
 * I did not vote to keep. Please read my comment.
 * My issue was with the nomination claiming “unsubstantiated” and “hate speech.”
 * “Unsubstantiated” means “not verifiable.” The number of various Google hits, whatever the actual number is, verifies the group’s existence.
 * There is no hate speech in the article. Please read the article before you vote.
 * I did not assert that the group is notable. I said the group is “rather obscure,” which means non-notable.
 * My second issue was with all the voters claiming vanity. Please read the article. I don’t think this article can be construed as vanity.
 * Please put some thought into your votes.
 * &#9678;DanMS 15:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. 150 hits ain't enough for political organizations. Firebug 07:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article lists the group as being small and based in a small town (the town does not even have a Wikipedia article), which insinuates that they are not notable.  My reason for voting to delete is I do not think this article meets the Verifiability requirement (as is stated by Hurricane111 above). Movementarian 08:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity, non-notable, article pretty much begs for deletion by quantifying just how insignificant the group is. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And yet my understanding is that, if they had won a seat at an election, somewhere, at any time, they would be notable enough to be included, even if there were only 2 or 3 of them. No vote--SockpuppetSamuelson 13:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Membership is only an issue if there are no other things providing notability. They have nothing which suggests they have any notability whatsoever. --Fastfission 00:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete group vanity, poor Google showing proves this group has had no real impact. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if they do exist as a movement and not just one person (and the evidence for that looks shaky at best) they are nowhere near notable enough to warrant an entry. Keresaspa 18:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Apparently their only claim to fame is having a Yahoo group which Yahoo decided to cancel and that one of their members posts responses to online articles. --Fastfission 00:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, because it is non-notable and the material isn't very encyclopediacly-written. I just made a new word. Croat Canuck 01:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stlemur. Stifle 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although the nomination is flawed the group doesn't look notable enough. Wait if they grow. Pavel Vozenilek 21:40, 9 December 2005 (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.